🔥 | Latest

ploy: gay-son-of-a-pastor: shoptiludropdead: muffinsandmatriarchy: m00nqueer: ok this is “earring magic ken” who was introduced in 1992 (and discontinued shortly thereafter) basically mattel had done a survey and discovered that girls didn’t think ken was “cool” enough SO someone had the bright idea to research coolness by sending people to raves which, at the time, were mostly hosted & attended by gay men. so they went to these raves and took notes on what the fashions were and finally landed on this outfit, mesh shirt & all  this doll became the best selling ken doll in history, mostly because gay men bought it in droves. (many of them said his necklace was supposed to be a cockring) but mattel and a number of parents weren’t very amused and discontinued the doll  OH MY GOD YOU’RE LEAVING OUT THE BEST PART SO MAGIC EARRING KEN. This bitch gay as HELL. supposedly the aforementioned rings on him are for “magic earrings” and clip on charms. These charms are advertised as totally COMPLETELY heterosexual, not gay at ALL, see there’s a Barbie that also has Magic Earring Action with clip on charms! Ken wears them to match, because he’s STRAIGHT Here’s the issue: THERE IS NO MATCHING BARBIE. Magic Earring Ken is out here straight up wearing cock rings on his jacket with a thinly devised advertising ploy to make it SEEM not-gay. But it’s DEFINITELY GAY.(And if you’re thinking, why cock rings? Well way back in 1992 gay culture was HUGE on wearing cock rings, it was the in-style. Everyone who was gay wore one, even women; you sewed them to your leather jacket, and the placement indicated some of your sexual preference. In case you were wondering, Ken is a Bottom.) AND IT GETS BETTER. Magic Earring Ken was on the shelves for six weeks before they pulled him. In that short amount of time? Magic Earring Ken became the BEST SELLING Barbie Doll Mattel has EVER SOLD.LET THAT SINK IN. SIX WEEKS. And now every time these wheezy old hetero windbag execs go to look at their sales board, they’re forever haunted by Magic Earring Ken at the top of their charts. Gay as hell, Cock Ring Bottom Ken, the Best Selling Mattel Doll.Pride. please take the time out of your day to read about Magic Earring Ken™ gay history
ploy: gay-son-of-a-pastor:

shoptiludropdead:

muffinsandmatriarchy:

m00nqueer:

ok this is “earring magic ken” who was introduced in 1992 (and discontinued shortly thereafter)
basically mattel had done a survey and discovered that girls didn’t think ken was “cool” enough
SO someone had the bright idea to research coolness by sending people to raves which, at the time, were mostly hosted & attended by gay men. so they went to these raves and took notes on what the fashions were and finally landed on this outfit, mesh shirt & all 
this doll became the best selling ken doll in history, mostly because gay men bought it in droves. (many of them said his necklace was supposed to be a cockring) but mattel and a number of parents weren’t very amused and discontinued the doll 


OH MY GOD YOU’RE LEAVING OUT THE BEST PART 
SO
MAGIC EARRING KEN. This bitch gay as HELL. supposedly the aforementioned rings on him are for “magic earrings” and clip on charms. These charms are advertised as totally COMPLETELY heterosexual, not gay at ALL, see there’s a Barbie that also has Magic Earring Action with clip on charms! Ken wears them to match, because he’s STRAIGHT 
Here’s the issue: THERE IS NO MATCHING BARBIE. Magic Earring Ken is out here straight up wearing cock rings on his jacket with a thinly devised advertising ploy to make it SEEM not-gay. But it’s DEFINITELY GAY.(And if you’re thinking, why cock rings? Well way back in 1992 gay culture was HUGE on wearing cock rings, it was the in-style. Everyone who was gay wore one, even women; you sewed them to your leather jacket, and the placement indicated some of your sexual preference. In case you were wondering, Ken is a Bottom.) 
AND IT GETS BETTER. Magic Earring Ken was on the shelves for six weeks before they pulled him. In that short amount of time? Magic Earring Ken became the BEST SELLING Barbie Doll Mattel has EVER SOLD.LET THAT SINK IN. SIX WEEKS. And now every time these wheezy old hetero windbag execs go to look at their sales board, they’re forever haunted by Magic Earring Ken at the top of their charts. 
Gay as hell, Cock Ring Bottom Ken, the Best Selling Mattel Doll.Pride.


please take the time out of your day to read about Magic Earring Ken™


gay history

gay-son-of-a-pastor: shoptiludropdead: muffinsandmatriarchy: m00nqueer: ok this is “earring magic ken” who was introduced in 1992 (an...

ploy: PLOY lleuslll: @bennediction look at my husband skeletor when he had a face 
ploy: PLOY
lleuslll:

@bennediction look at my husband skeletor when he had a face 

lleuslll: @bennediction look at my husband skeletor when he had a face 

ploy: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
ploy: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
libertarirynn:

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.
6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.
7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).
Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.
Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want

One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else


Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.


Important 


Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.

libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be force...

ploy: Taylor Today 11:30 AM All my life I've been told that everyman needs a good tailor.. now I realize they've been spelling it wrong this entire time Today 12:06 PM I love it E Hey there Today 1:01 PM You must be a dork. I was not expecting that to work haha Today 5:18 PM I am indeed Today 5:43 PM Day1 on tinder for me. What do you reccomend after a successful pickup line? 21 questions? Sexual innuen- dos? Snapchat? I wanna know what you reccomend. It's for science Today 6:09 PM For science aye Talk lol uhhhhh keep being you ? So about me, I'm adorable af. Leaving for the Basic Traini Today 7.08 PM Lol nice dude Today 8:03 PM Should be fun, but l'd rather talk about Taylor. Tell me something you're most proud of Today 9:16 PM Myself haha. Im proud of how I keep pushing forward no matter what life throws at me lol I'm proud of myself for surviving this summer working the most kick ass internship ever at house of blues and two other jobs basically lol. That's awesome, you're self confidence radiates and that's so attractive. Never lose that, no matter what the fuckboys tell you I destroy the fuckboyshehe Really love your tats. And find you interesting af already haha I'm so into your 2nd picture, you look so exhausted but incredibly sexy at the same time. Please tell me that cat is yours why thank you. It was captioned Satan is always watching" haha That little cats name is.. Satan and he is one of mine haha. Tell me about all the animals Simon is grey and clings to me Travis is black and white he loves EVERYONE. Precious is a talkative Siamese. Satan is a satanic orange fluff ball. And dobby is the house elf I mean morkie. He's like a little derpy chicken nugget. You are success-driven dorky Cat-Lady You're a Why thank you sir Cats are rad lol And the morkie is pretty rad sometimes too lol I want to superman jump onto your bed and hang out with the whole gang, mainly Satan though. That's not even a ploy to get into your pants. Lol satan is one little shit. If you can get him to like you I'll be impressed lol. wouldn't mind ya joining tho. What dorky movie you got lined up Oh my what a choice Step brothers So random, let's do it YAAAASSSSS BOATSANDHOES Created with Stitch & Share! This is Taylor. Im allergic to cats, Ill let reddit decide
ploy: Taylor
 Today 11:30 AM
 All my life I've been told that
 everyman needs a good tailor.. now
 I realize they've been spelling it
 wrong this entire time
 Today 12:06 PM
 I love it E
 Hey there
 Today 1:01 PM
 You must be a dork. I was not
 expecting that to work haha
 Today 5:18 PM
 I am indeed
 Today 5:43 PM
 Day1 on tinder for me. What do you
 reccomend after a successful pickup
 line? 21 questions? Sexual innuen-
 dos? Snapchat? I wanna know what
 you reccomend. It's for science
 Today 6:09 PM
 For science aye
 Talk lol uhhhhh keep being
 you ?
 So about me, I'm adorable af.
 Leaving for the
 Basic Traini
 Today 7.08 PM
 Lol nice dude
 Today 8:03 PM
 Should be fun, but l'd rather talk
 about Taylor. Tell me something
 you're most proud of
 Today 9:16 PM
 Myself haha. Im proud of how I
 keep pushing forward no matter
 what life throws at me lol
 I'm proud of myself for surviving
 this summer working the most
 kick ass internship ever at house
 of blues and two other jobs
 basically lol.
 That's awesome, you're self
 confidence radiates and that's so
 attractive. Never lose that, no matter
 what the fuckboys tell you
 I destroy the fuckboyshehe
 Really love your tats. And find you
 interesting af already haha
 I'm so into your 2nd picture, you
 look so exhausted but incredibly
 sexy at the same time. Please tell
 me that cat is yours
 why thank you. It was captioned
 Satan is always watching" haha
 That little cats name is.. Satan and
 he is one of mine haha.
 Tell me about all the animals
 Simon is grey and clings to me
 Travis is black and white he loves
 EVERYONE. Precious is a talkative
 Siamese. Satan is a satanic orange
 fluff ball. And dobby is the house
 elf I mean morkie. He's like a little
 derpy chicken nugget.
 You are success-driven dorky
 Cat-Lady
 You're a
 Why thank you sir
 Cats are rad lol
 And the morkie is pretty rad
 sometimes too lol
 I want to superman jump onto
 your bed and hang out with the
 whole gang, mainly Satan though.
 That's not even a ploy to get into
 your pants.
 Lol satan is one little shit. If you can
 get him to like you I'll be impressed
 lol. wouldn't mind ya joining tho.
 What dorky movie you got lined up
 Oh my what a choice
 Step brothers
 So random, let's do it
 YAAAASSSSS BOATSANDHOES
 Created with
 Stitch & Share!
This is Taylor. Im allergic to cats, Ill let reddit decide

This is Taylor. Im allergic to cats, Ill let reddit decide

ploy: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 peteschult: libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation. Cops are *never* your friends. And they are under no obligation to protect you. Ever. Get rid of pigs!
ploy: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
peteschult:

libertarirynn:

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.
6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.
7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).
Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.
Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want

One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else


Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.


Important 


Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.


Cops are *never* your friends. And they are under no obligation to protect you. Ever.
Get rid of pigs!

peteschult: libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may leg...

ploy: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 <p><a href="http://gvldngrl.tumblr.com/post/166513263494/wolfoverdose-rikodeine-seemeflow-because" class="tumblr_blog">gvldngrl</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://wolfoverdose.tumblr.com/post/166265395771/rikodeine-seemeflow-because-of-the-fifth" class="tumblr_blog">wolfoverdose</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://rikodeine.tumblr.com/post/131562629300">rikodeine</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://seemeflow.tumblr.com/post/131556627065">seemeflow</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><b>Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.</b></p> <p><b>1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”</b><br/>Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.</p> <p><b>2) “Do you have something to hide?”</b><br/>Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.</p> <p><b>3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”</b><br/>The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”<br/>(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)</p> <p><b>4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”</b><br/>Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.</p> <p><b>5.) We have someone who will testify against you</b><br/>Police “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.</p> <p><b>6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”</b><br/>Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.</p> <p><b>7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”</b><br/>Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.</p> <p>U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).</p> <p>Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.</p> <p>Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.</p> <p><a href="http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want">http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want</a><br/></p> </blockquote> <p>One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else</p> </blockquote> <p>Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.</p> </blockquote> <p>Important </p> </blockquote> <p>Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.</p>
ploy: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
<p><a href="http://gvldngrl.tumblr.com/post/166513263494/wolfoverdose-rikodeine-seemeflow-because" class="tumblr_blog">gvldngrl</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="http://wolfoverdose.tumblr.com/post/166265395771/rikodeine-seemeflow-because-of-the-fifth" class="tumblr_blog">wolfoverdose</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://rikodeine.tumblr.com/post/131562629300">rikodeine</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://seemeflow.tumblr.com/post/131556627065">seemeflow</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.</b></p>
<p><b>1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”</b><br/>Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.</p>
<p><b>2) “Do you have something to hide?”</b><br/>Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.</p>
<p><b>3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”</b><br/>The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”<br/>(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)</p>
<p><b>4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”</b><br/>Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.</p>
<p><b>5.) We have someone who will testify against you</b><br/>Police “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.</p>
<p><b>6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”</b><br/>Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.</p>
<p><b>7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”</b><br/>Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.</p>
<p>U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).</p>
<p>Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.</p>
<p>Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want">http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want</a><br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Important </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.</p>

<p><a href="http://gvldngrl.tumblr.com/post/166513263494/wolfoverdose-rikodeine-seemeflow-because" class="tumblr_blog">gvldngrl</a>:</p><...

ploy: m00nqueer ok this is "earring magic ken" who was introduced in 1992 (and discontinued shortly thereafter) basically mattel had done a survey and discovered that girls didn't think ken was "cool enough SO someone had the bright idea to research coolness by sending people to raves which, at the time, were mostly hosted & attended by gay men. so they went to these raves and took notes on what the fashions were and finally landed on this outfit, mesh shirt & all this doll became the best selling ken doll in history, mostly because gay men bought it in droves. (many of them said his necklace was supposed to bea cockring) but mattel and a number of parents weren't very amused and discontinued the doll muffinsandmatriarchy OH MY GOD YOU'RE LEAVING OUT THE BEST PART So MAGIC EARRING KEN. This bitch gay as HELL. supposedly the aforementioned rings on him are for "magic earrings" and clip on charms. These charms are advertised as totally COMPLETELY heterosexual, not gay at ALL, see there's a Barbie that also has Magic Earring Action with clip on charms! Ken wears them to match, because he's STRAIGHT Here's the issue: THERE IS NO MATCHING BARBIE. Magic Earring Ken is out here straight up wearing cock rings on his jacket with a thinly devised advertising ploy to make it SEEM not-gay. But it's DEFINITELY GAY And if you're thinking, why cock rings? Well way back in 1992 gay culture was HUGE on wearing cock rings, it was the in-style. Everyone who was gay wore one, even women; you sewed them to your leather jacket, and the placement indicated some of your sexual preference. In case you were wondering. Ken is a Bottom.) AND IT GETS BETTER. Magic Earring Ken was on the shelves for six weeks before they pulled him. In that short amount of time? Magic Earring Ken became the BEST SELLING Barbie Doll Mattel has EVER SOLD LET THAT SINK IN. SIX WEEKS. And now every time these wheezy old hetero windbag execs go to look at their sales board, they're forever haunted by Magic Earring Ken at the top of their charts Gay as hell, Cock Ring Bottom Ken, the Best Selling Mattel Doll Pride, shoptiludropdead please take the time out of your day to read about Magic Earring KenTM Magic Earring ken
ploy: m00nqueer
 ok this is "earring magic ken" who was introduced in 1992 (and discontinued
 shortly thereafter)
 basically mattel had done a survey and discovered that girls didn't think ken
 was "cool enough
 SO someone had the bright idea to research coolness by sending people to
 raves which, at the time, were mostly hosted & attended by gay men. so they
 went to these raves and took notes on what the fashions were and finally
 landed on this outfit, mesh shirt & all
 this doll became the best selling ken doll in history, mostly because gay men
 bought it in droves. (many of them said his necklace was supposed to bea
 cockring) but mattel and a number of parents weren't very amused and
 discontinued the doll
 muffinsandmatriarchy
 OH MY GOD YOU'RE LEAVING OUT THE BEST PART
 So
 MAGIC EARRING KEN. This bitch gay as HELL. supposedly the aforementioned
 rings on him are for "magic earrings" and clip on charms. These charms are
 advertised as totally COMPLETELY heterosexual, not gay at ALL, see there's a
 Barbie that also has Magic Earring Action with clip on charms! Ken wears them
 to match, because he's STRAIGHT
 Here's the issue: THERE IS NO MATCHING BARBIE. Magic Earring Ken is out
 here straight up wearing cock rings on his jacket with a thinly devised
 advertising ploy to make it SEEM not-gay. But it's DEFINITELY GAY
 And if you're thinking, why cock rings? Well way back in 1992 gay culture was
 HUGE on wearing cock rings, it was the in-style. Everyone who was gay wore
 one, even women; you sewed them to your leather jacket, and the placement
 indicated some of your sexual preference. In case you were wondering. Ken is a
 Bottom.)
 AND IT GETS BETTER. Magic Earring Ken was on the shelves for six weeks
 before they pulled him. In that short amount of time? Magic Earring Ken
 became the BEST SELLING Barbie Doll Mattel has EVER SOLD
 LET THAT SINK IN. SIX WEEKS. And now every time these wheezy old hetero
 windbag execs go to look at their sales board, they're forever haunted by Magic
 Earring Ken at the top of their charts
 Gay as hell, Cock Ring Bottom Ken, the Best Selling Mattel Doll
 Pride,
 shoptiludropdead
 please take the time out of your day to read about Magic Earring KenTM
Magic Earring ken

Magic Earring ken

ploy: m00nqueer ok this is "earring magic ken" who was introduced in 1992 (and discontinued shortly thereafter) basically mattel had done a survey and discovered that girls didn't think ken was "cool" enough SO someone had the bright idea to research coolness by sending people to raves which, at the time, were mostly hosted & attended by gay men. so they went to these raves and took notes on what the fashions were and finally landed on this outfit, mesh shirt & all this doll became the best selling ken doll in history, mostly because gay men bought it in droves. (many of them said his necklace was supposed to be a cockring) but mattel and a number of parents weren't very amused and discontinued the doll muffinsandmatriarchy OH MY GOD YOU'RE LEAVING OUT THE BEST PART SO MAGIC EARRING KEN. This bitch gay as HELL. supposedly the aforementioned rings on him are for "magic earrings" and clip on charms. These charms are advertised as totally COMPLETELY heterosexual, not gay at ALL, see there's a Barbie that also has Magic Earring Action with clip on charms! Ken wears them to match, because he's STRAIGHT Here's the issue: THERE IS NO MATCHING BARBIE. Magic Earring Ken is out here straight up wearing cock rings on his jacket with a thinly devised advertising ploy to make it SEEM not-gay. But it's DEFINITELY GAY. (And if you're thinking, why cock rings? Well way back in 1992 gay culture was HUGE on wearing cock rings, it was the in-style. Everyone who was gay wore one, even women; you sewed them to your leather jacket, and the placement indicated some of your sexual preference. In case you were wondering, Ken is a Bottom.) AND IT GETS BETTER. Magic Earring Ken was on the shelves for six weeks before they pulled him. In that short amount of time? Magic Earring Ken became the BEST SELLING Barbie Doll Mattel has EVER SOLD LET THAT SINK IN. SIX WEEKS. And now every time these wheezy old hetero windbag execs go to look at their sales board, they're forever haunted by Magic Earring Ken at the top of their charts Gay as hell, Cock Ring Bottom Ken, the Best Selling Mattel Doll. Pride. shoptiludropdead please take the time out of your day to read about Magic Earring KenTM When Magic Ken became the best selling Ken doll - and he was gay
ploy: m00nqueer
 ok this is "earring magic ken" who was introduced in 1992 (and discontinued
 shortly thereafter)
 basically mattel had done a survey and discovered that girls didn't think ken
 was "cool" enough
 SO someone had the bright idea to research coolness by sending people to
 raves which, at the time, were mostly hosted & attended by gay men. so they
 went to these raves and took notes on what the fashions were and finally
 landed on this outfit, mesh shirt & all
 this doll became the best selling ken doll in history, mostly because gay men
 bought it in droves. (many of them said his necklace was supposed to be a
 cockring) but mattel and a number of parents weren't very amused and
 discontinued the doll
 muffinsandmatriarchy
 OH MY GOD YOU'RE LEAVING OUT THE BEST PART
 SO
 MAGIC EARRING KEN. This bitch gay as HELL. supposedly the aforementioned
 rings on him are for "magic earrings" and clip on charms. These charms are
 advertised as totally COMPLETELY heterosexual, not gay at ALL, see there's a
 Barbie that also has Magic Earring Action with clip on charms! Ken wears them
 to match, because he's STRAIGHT
 Here's the issue: THERE IS NO MATCHING BARBIE. Magic Earring Ken is out
 here straight up wearing cock rings on his jacket with a thinly devised
 advertising ploy to make it SEEM not-gay. But it's DEFINITELY GAY.
 (And if you're thinking, why cock rings? Well way back in 1992 gay culture was
 HUGE on wearing cock rings, it was the in-style. Everyone who was gay wore
 one, even women; you sewed them to your leather jacket, and the placement
 indicated some of your sexual preference. In case you were wondering, Ken is a
 Bottom.)
 AND IT GETS BETTER. Magic Earring Ken was on the shelves for six weeks
 before they pulled him. In that short amount of time? Magic Earring Ken
 became the BEST SELLING Barbie Doll Mattel has EVER SOLD
 LET THAT SINK IN. SIX WEEKS. And now every time these wheezy old hetero
 windbag execs go to look at their sales board, they're forever haunted by Magic
 Earring Ken at the top of their charts
 Gay as hell, Cock Ring Bottom Ken, the Best Selling Mattel Doll.
 Pride.
 shoptiludropdead
 please take the time out of your day to read about Magic Earring KenTM
When Magic Ken became the best selling Ken doll - and he was gay

When Magic Ken became the best selling Ken doll - and he was gay

ploy: m00nqueer ok this is "earring magic ken" who was introduced in 1992 (and discontinued shortly thereafter) basically mattel had done a survey and discovered that girls didn't think ken was "cool" enough SO someone had the bright idea to research coolness by sending people to raves which, at the time, were mostly hosted & attended by gay men. so they went to these raves and took notes on what the fashions were and finally landed on this outfit, mesh shirt & all this doll became the best selling ken doll in history, mostly because gay men bought it in droves. (many of them said his necklace was supposed to be a cockring) but mattel and a number of parents weren't very amused and discontinued the doll muffinsandmatriarchy OH MY GOD YOU'RE LEAVING OUT THE BEST PART MAGIC EARRING KEN. This bitch gay as HELL. supposedly the aforementioned rings on him are for “magic earrings" and clip on charms. These charms are advertised as totally COMPLETELY heterosexual, not gay at ALL, see there's a Barbie that also has Magic Earring Action with clip on charms! Ken wears them to match, because he's STRAIGHT Here's the issue: THERE IS NO MATCHING BARBIE. Magic Earring Ken is out here straight up wearing cock rings on his jacket with a thinly devised advertising ploy to make it SEEM not-gay. But it's DEFINITELY GAY. (And if you're thinking, why cock rings? Well way back in 1992 gay culture was HUGE on wearing cock rings, it was the in-style. Everyone who was gay wore one, even women; you sewed them to your leather jacket, and the placement indicated some of your sexual preference. In case you were wondering, Ken is a Bottom.) AND IT GETS BETTER. Magic Earring Ken was on the shelves for six weeks before they pulled him. In that short amount of time? Magic Earring Ken became the BEST SELLING Barbie Doll Mattel has EVER SOLD LET THAT SINK IN. SIX WEEKS. And now every time these wheezy old hetero windbag execs go to look at their sales board, they're forever haunted by Magic Earring Ken at the top of their charts Gay as hell, Cock Ring Bottom Ken, the Best Selling Mattel Doll Pride shoptiludropdead please take the time out of your day to read about Magic Earring KenTM Earring Magic Ken™
ploy: m00nqueer
 ok this is "earring magic ken" who was introduced in 1992 (and discontinued
 shortly thereafter)
 basically mattel had done a survey and discovered that girls didn't think ken
 was "cool" enough
 SO someone had the bright idea to research coolness by sending people to
 raves which, at the time, were mostly hosted & attended by gay men. so they
 went to these raves and took notes on what the fashions were and finally
 landed on this outfit, mesh shirt & all
 this doll became the best selling ken doll in history, mostly because gay men
 bought it in droves. (many of them said his necklace was supposed to be a
 cockring) but mattel and a number of parents weren't very amused and
 discontinued the doll
 muffinsandmatriarchy
 OH MY GOD YOU'RE LEAVING OUT THE BEST PART
 MAGIC EARRING KEN. This bitch gay as HELL. supposedly the aforementioned
 rings on him are for “magic earrings" and clip on charms. These charms are
 advertised as totally COMPLETELY heterosexual, not gay at ALL, see there's a
 Barbie that also has Magic Earring Action with clip on charms! Ken wears them
 to match, because he's STRAIGHT
 Here's the issue: THERE IS NO MATCHING BARBIE. Magic Earring Ken is out
 here straight up wearing cock rings on his jacket with a thinly devised
 advertising ploy to make it SEEM not-gay. But it's DEFINITELY GAY.
 (And if you're thinking, why cock rings? Well way back in 1992 gay culture was
 HUGE on wearing cock rings, it was the in-style. Everyone who was gay wore
 one, even women; you sewed them to your leather jacket, and the placement
 indicated some of your sexual preference. In case you were wondering, Ken is a
 Bottom.)
 AND IT GETS BETTER. Magic Earring Ken was on the shelves for six weeks
 before they pulled him. In that short amount of time? Magic Earring Ken
 became the BEST SELLING Barbie Doll Mattel has EVER SOLD
 LET THAT SINK IN. SIX WEEKS. And now every time these wheezy old hetero
 windbag execs go to look at their sales board, they're forever haunted by Magic
 Earring Ken at the top of their charts
 Gay as hell, Cock Ring Bottom Ken, the Best Selling Mattel Doll
 Pride
 shoptiludropdead
 please take the time out of your day to read about Magic Earring KenTM
Earring Magic Ken™

Earring Magic Ken™

ploy: Suge Knight Claims Dr. Dre Paid $20,000 to Have Him Killed @balleralert Suge Knight Claims Dr. Dre Paid $20,000 to Have Him Killed - blogged by @MsJennyb ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Back in 2016, SugeKnight filed a suit against co-founder of Death Row Records, DrDre, accusing him of hiring a hit man to take him out a few years prior. At the time of the alleged murder for hire plot, Dre had just secured the billion dollar Beats By Dre x Apple deal. However, Knight claims he had a lifetime contract with Dre, which supposedly forced the music producer to cough up $300 million of the deal. In an attempt to skip out on the payment, Knight claimed Dre ordered a $50,000 hit on him, which resulted in the 2014 1Oak shooting of Knight. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Now one year later, Knight is back with similar claims against the superstar record producer. This time, Knight claims Dre paid $20,000 to have him killed. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ In legal docs obtained by TMZ, Knight claims he was shown a check back in July of 2016 that was made out to a man named Dwayne Johnson. He says the check was made out by Dr. Dre to have Knight killed, the same day the music exec fatally ran over Terry Carter at Tam’s. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Knight claims Johnson also told him and a private investigator that the $20,000 check was partial payment for “Dwayne Johnson to participate in my murder,” the documents state. However, according to TMZ, Knight’s allegations may be a ploy to get himself off the hook, as he claims he had reason to fear for his life when he entered Tam’s parking lot. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ As a result, Knight asked a judge to check Dre’s financial records to prove he paid for the hit, however, the judge denied the motion.
ploy: Suge Knight Claims Dr. Dre Paid
 $20,000 to Have Him Killed
 @balleralert
Suge Knight Claims Dr. Dre Paid $20,000 to Have Him Killed - blogged by @MsJennyb ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Back in 2016, SugeKnight filed a suit against co-founder of Death Row Records, DrDre, accusing him of hiring a hit man to take him out a few years prior. At the time of the alleged murder for hire plot, Dre had just secured the billion dollar Beats By Dre x Apple deal. However, Knight claims he had a lifetime contract with Dre, which supposedly forced the music producer to cough up $300 million of the deal. In an attempt to skip out on the payment, Knight claimed Dre ordered a $50,000 hit on him, which resulted in the 2014 1Oak shooting of Knight. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Now one year later, Knight is back with similar claims against the superstar record producer. This time, Knight claims Dre paid $20,000 to have him killed. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ In legal docs obtained by TMZ, Knight claims he was shown a check back in July of 2016 that was made out to a man named Dwayne Johnson. He says the check was made out by Dr. Dre to have Knight killed, the same day the music exec fatally ran over Terry Carter at Tam’s. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Knight claims Johnson also told him and a private investigator that the $20,000 check was partial payment for “Dwayne Johnson to participate in my murder,” the documents state. However, according to TMZ, Knight’s allegations may be a ploy to get himself off the hook, as he claims he had reason to fear for his life when he entered Tam’s parking lot. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ As a result, Knight asked a judge to check Dre’s financial records to prove he paid for the hit, however, the judge denied the motion.

Suge Knight Claims Dr. Dre Paid $20,000 to Have Him Killed - blogged by @MsJennyb ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Back in 2016, SugeKnight filed a suit a...

ploy: Matt McGorry @MattMcGorry #BlackLivesMatter doesn't mean other lives don't. Like people who say "Save The Rainforests" aren't saying "Fuck All Other Types of Forests" 7/18/15, 2:00 PM I Understand Why Some Black People Couldn't Care Less About Justine Damond Terrell Jermaine Starr Yesterday 9:00am . Filed to: JUSTINE DAMOND 26 Good Morning America screenshot I understand the frustration in Son of Baldwin's recent piece when he said the following: I'm going to say this and I mean-down to my subatomic particles-what I say. And I actually don't care what anyone might think about it: I don't give a FUCK about Justine Damond and what happened to her. I don't give a fuck because most white people didn't give a fuck when police murdered seven-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones as she lay on a couch, sleeping. What most white people- and some black people- did was blame Aiyana's family I don't give a fuck because a black woman (or a Native woman) in the identical situation Justine was in wouldn't garner support or sympathy from most white people. No. What most white people would do is look for reasons that might justify why the police officer "had" to kill the black woman. Most white people rely on this idea that black people, in situations where white people are in pain, are only ever to be soothing and understanding; only ever to be Mammy or Uncle Remus; only ever to extend condolences; only ever to embody loyalty; only ever to offer the empathy and sympathy that most white people purposely and haughtily deny when the situation is reversed-almost as if most white people still see us as their property. So while there are some who want to criticize black folks for responding coldly to Damond's death, I'd challenge them to indict the white supremacist society that created the conditions for such reactions. When I hear people say, "Fuck you, Justine Damond," I hear hurt and pain. If there is anything we can pull out of this cold indifference, it is that white America must realize that its coldness toward us in our most delicate moments can be directed right back at them. When people say, "Fuck Justine Damond," I am certain they aren't condemning her personally. I take it as them saying, "Fuck what Justine Damond's death represents." <p><a href="https://kamiyu910.tumblr.com/post/163841946898/jooshbag-siryouarebeingmocked-blmer-you" class="tumblr_blog">kamiyu910</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://jooshbag.tumblr.com/post/163655500851/siryouarebeingmocked-blmer-you-can-support" class="tumblr_blog">jooshbag</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://siryouarebeingmocked.tumblr.com/post/163655375746/blmer-you-can-support-blacklivesmatter-and-still" class="tumblr_blog">siryouarebeingmocked</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><b>BLMer</b>: You can support BlackLivesMatter and <b>still care about other lives</b>.</p> <p><b>Other BLMers</b>: &gt;<a href="http://archive.is/oEbkL">Yes, a black cop shot a white woman, but <b>we don’t care</b> because black people are the <i>real</i> victims here</a>&lt;. </p> <p>Of course, anyone who remember’s BLM’s reaction to the Paris and Nice Terror attacks and Orlando (IE “hey! Give us that spotlight back!”) won’t be surprised.</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="236" data-orig-width="655"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bb3c765a3becbd22ddae0e4900996429/tumblr_inline_otpb25aaqJ1sps4wz_540.png" data-orig-height="236" data-orig-width="655"/></figure><p>Remember all those national news stories about <b>white </b>people shot by cops? And <b>Asians</b>? And <b>Latinos</b>? <b>Literally every ethnic group but black people</b>? All the time?</p> <p>Because I sure don’t.</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="156" data-orig-width="663"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/74e09bcc7f4320edd68f9b2416101a55/tumblr_inline_otpb25NyRp1sps4wz_540.png" data-orig-height="156" data-orig-width="663"/></figure><p>“We don’t <i>want </i>to hate whippl! Society <b>made</b> us! We’re not <b>adults</b> responsible for our own feelings and reactions!”</p> </blockquote> <p>“Black Lives Matter doesn’t mean that others don’t.” </p> <p>“So All Lives Matter?” </p> <p>“Excuse me but this is about black lives. That’s what matters here. Stop trying to make the conversation about you.”</p> </blockquote> <p>They don’t even care about black lives unless they were shot by cops. And then they don’t even care about all those lives either, because they pick and choose the ones that will make the best stories! Around 200 or so black men are shot by cops every year, while 400 black children are murdered through things like gang violence, but we don’t hear about them either. </p> <p>It’s nothing but a political ploy to get attention and make a fuss over a couple of people they don’t <i>actually </i>care about. They don’t actually care about stopping police brutality, or they’d care about all police brutality. They don’t care about anything but themselves and they prove it every time they hijack a memorial or an event to talk about <i>their</i> problems. Nothing matters but them.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not to mention the black cops that get shot. Or pretty much any black person that doesn&rsquo;t fit the prescribed narrative.</p>
ploy: Matt McGorry
 @MattMcGorry
 #BlackLivesMatter doesn't
 mean other lives don't. Like people
 who say "Save The Rainforests"
 aren't saying "Fuck All Other Types
 of Forests"
 7/18/15, 2:00 PM

 I Understand Why Some Black People
 Couldn't Care Less About Justine Damond
 Terrell Jermaine Starr
 Yesterday 9:00am . Filed to: JUSTINE DAMOND
 26
 Good Morning America screenshot

 I understand the frustration in Son of Baldwin's recent piece when he said the
 following:
 I'm going to say this and I mean-down to my subatomic particles-what I say.
 And I actually don't care what anyone might think about it:
 I don't give a FUCK about Justine Damond and what happened to her.
 I don't give a fuck because most white people didn't give a fuck when police
 murdered seven-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones as she lay on a couch, sleeping.
 What most white people- and some black people- did was blame Aiyana's
 family
 I don't give a fuck because a black woman (or a Native woman) in the identical
 situation Justine was in wouldn't garner support or sympathy from most white
 people. No. What most white people would do is look for reasons that might
 justify why the police officer "had" to kill the black woman.
 Most white people rely on this idea that black people, in situations where white
 people are in pain, are only ever to be soothing and understanding; only ever to
 be Mammy or Uncle Remus; only ever to extend condolences; only ever to
 embody loyalty; only ever to offer the empathy and sympathy that most white
 people purposely and haughtily deny when the situation is reversed-almost as
 if most white people still see us as their property.

 So while there are some who want to criticize black folks for responding coldly
 to Damond's death, I'd challenge them to indict the white supremacist society
 that created the conditions for such reactions. When I hear people say, "Fuck
 you, Justine Damond," I hear hurt and pain. If there is anything we can pull
 out of this cold indifference, it is that white America must realize that its
 coldness toward us in our most delicate moments can be directed right back at
 them. When people say, "Fuck Justine Damond," I am certain they aren't
 condemning her personally. I take it as them saying, "Fuck what Justine
 Damond's death represents."
<p><a href="https://kamiyu910.tumblr.com/post/163841946898/jooshbag-siryouarebeingmocked-blmer-you" class="tumblr_blog">kamiyu910</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="http://jooshbag.tumblr.com/post/163655500851/siryouarebeingmocked-blmer-you-can-support" class="tumblr_blog">jooshbag</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://siryouarebeingmocked.tumblr.com/post/163655375746/blmer-you-can-support-blacklivesmatter-and-still" class="tumblr_blog">siryouarebeingmocked</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><b>BLMer</b>: You can support BlackLivesMatter and <b>still care about other lives</b>.</p>
<p><b>Other BLMers</b>: &gt;<a href="http://archive.is/oEbkL">Yes, a black cop shot a white woman, but <b>we don’t care</b> because black people are the <i>real</i> victims here</a>&lt;. </p>
<p>Of course, anyone who remember’s BLM’s reaction to the Paris and Nice Terror attacks and Orlando (IE “hey! Give us that spotlight back!”) won’t be surprised.</p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="236" data-orig-width="655"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bb3c765a3becbd22ddae0e4900996429/tumblr_inline_otpb25aaqJ1sps4wz_540.png" data-orig-height="236" data-orig-width="655"/></figure><p>Remember all those national news stories about <b>white </b>people shot by cops? And <b>Asians</b>? And <b>Latinos</b>? <b>Literally every ethnic group but black people</b>? All the time?</p>
<p>Because I sure don’t.</p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="156" data-orig-width="663"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/74e09bcc7f4320edd68f9b2416101a55/tumblr_inline_otpb25NyRp1sps4wz_540.png" data-orig-height="156" data-orig-width="663"/></figure><p>“We don’t <i>want </i>to hate whippl! Society <b>made</b> us! We’re not <b>adults</b> responsible for our own feelings and reactions!”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>“Black Lives Matter doesn’t mean that others don’t.” </p>
<p>“So All Lives Matter?” </p>
<p>“Excuse me but this is about black lives. That’s what matters here. Stop trying to make the conversation about you.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>They don’t even care about black lives unless they were shot by cops. And then they don’t even care about all those lives either, because they pick and choose the ones that will make the best stories! Around 200 or so black men are shot by cops every year, while 400 black children are murdered through things like gang violence, but we don’t hear about them either. </p>
<p>It’s nothing but a political ploy to get attention and make a fuss over a couple of people they don’t <i>actually </i>care about. They don’t actually care about stopping police brutality, or they’d care about all police brutality. They don’t care about anything but themselves and they prove it every time they hijack a memorial or an event to talk about <i>their</i> problems. Nothing matters but them.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Not to mention the black cops that get shot. Or pretty much any black person that doesn&rsquo;t fit the prescribed narrative.</p>

<p><a href="https://kamiyu910.tumblr.com/post/163841946898/jooshbag-siryouarebeingmocked-blmer-you" class="tumblr_blog">kamiyu910</a>:</p...

ploy: oo0 Verizon LTE 12:49 PM Search Starbucks 3 hrs . Hey Starbucks, as the unicorn frappuccino was so popular, thought I'd pitch a few suggestions for fraps based on other mythical creatures: Dragon frappuccino: Made with dragonfruit, cinnamon, and fiery hot chiles. A shameless ploy to acquire gold. Werewolf frappuccino: Seems like a normal chocolate frap (werewolves love chocolate) but the caffeine doesn't kick in until the next full moon. And boy howdy, does it kick in. Mermaid frappuccino: Extra foam and sea salt caramel drizzle. Comes with a free Danish in honor of Hans Christian Anderson. Centaur: Has an oatmeal raisin cookie crumble crust. Oats for the horse and raisins for the wine-lovina human Whinned cream is Write a comment.. Post o Verizon LTE 12:49 PM Q Searclh Fairy frappuccino: A delightful delicate flavor of honeysuckle and lavender, it has the unfortunate effect of making you fall in love with the next live creature that you see. Pixie frappuccino: MIXED WITH TGE POWDER OF WITH 15 PIXIE STICKS Elf frappuccino: Made with the most important food groups- candy, candy canes, candy corn, and syrup. Keebler cookie crumbles Hobbit frappuccino: Only served in size tall. Get one for breakfast and get a second one free! Ogre frappuccino: Looks green and putrid on the outside, but has layers of different flavors that will Smash your Mouth Zombie frappuccino: like a normal frap, but with SEVERAL extra shots of espresso Write a comment... Post ooo Verizon LTE 12:49 PM Q Searclh Wizard frappuccino: Butterbeer Witch frappuccino: You'd think it would be the same as the wizard frap, but it has eye of newt and toe of frog #everydaysexism Yeti frappuccino: Tastes like a lemon snow cone, with Himalayan pink salt Alien frappuccino: They actually do have this in the Starbucks at one government building in New Mexico, but it's on the secret menu Ghost frappuccino: Zero calories. Probably just blended ice. Poltergeist frappuccino: Hurls itself against the wall after you pay for it Vampire frappuccino: Blood. It's just blood. 2 Shares Write a comment... Э| Post ooo VerizonLTE 12:49 PM Search egan Anne Fraedric Or most of these monstrosities 1 HOUR AGO LIKE REPLY 2 Write a reply.. Starbucks Hi, Megan. Thanks for the awesome suggestions! They raise some interesting food safety and supply chain concerns, but hey, maybe it'll just be a fun challenge for our product development teams who are used to more traditional sourcing methods. ;) 1 HOUR AGO LIKED 13 REPLY Write a comment... Post jackskellington84: sophettestuff: sanjha-a-kitani: schmergo: The official Starbucks facebook account reviewed my pitches for new Frappuccinos based on mythical creatures to follow the unicorn one I love how it starts out with the dragon one which could theoretically be done and then just devolves into “it’s just blood”. I know right jsjsjsj I love this too much
ploy: oo0 Verizon LTE 12:49 PM
 Search
 Starbucks
 3 hrs .
 Hey Starbucks, as the unicorn frappuccino
 was so popular, thought I'd pitch a few
 suggestions for fraps based on other
 mythical creatures:
 Dragon frappuccino: Made with dragonfruit,
 cinnamon, and fiery hot chiles. A shameless
 ploy to acquire gold.
 Werewolf frappuccino: Seems like a normal
 chocolate frap (werewolves love chocolate)
 but the caffeine doesn't kick in until the next
 full moon. And boy howdy, does it kick in.
 Mermaid frappuccino: Extra foam and sea salt
 caramel drizzle. Comes with a free Danish in
 honor of Hans Christian Anderson.
 Centaur: Has an oatmeal raisin cookie
 crumble crust. Oats for the horse and raisins
 for the wine-lovina human Whinned cream is
 Write a comment..
 Post

 o Verizon LTE 12:49 PM
 Q Searclh
 Fairy frappuccino: A delightful delicate flavor
 of honeysuckle and lavender, it has the
 unfortunate effect of making you fall in love
 with the next live creature that you see.
 Pixie frappuccino: MIXED WITH TGE
 POWDER OF WITH 15 PIXIE STICKS
 Elf frappuccino: Made with the most
 important food groups- candy, candy canes,
 candy corn, and syrup. Keebler cookie
 crumbles
 Hobbit frappuccino: Only served in size tall.
 Get one for breakfast and get a second one
 free!
 Ogre frappuccino: Looks green and putrid on
 the outside, but has layers of different flavors
 that will Smash your Mouth
 Zombie frappuccino: like a normal frap, but
 with SEVERAL extra shots of espresso
 Write a comment...
 Post

 ooo Verizon LTE 12:49 PM
 Q Searclh
 Wizard frappuccino: Butterbeer
 Witch frappuccino: You'd think it would be
 the same as the wizard frap, but it has eye of
 newt and toe of frog #everydaysexism
 Yeti frappuccino: Tastes like a lemon snow
 cone, with Himalayan pink salt
 Alien frappuccino: They actually do have this
 in the Starbucks at one government building
 in New Mexico, but it's on the secret menu
 Ghost frappuccino: Zero calories. Probably
 just blended ice.
 Poltergeist frappuccino: Hurls itself against
 the wall after you pay for it
 Vampire frappuccino: Blood. It's just blood.
 2 Shares
 Write a comment...
 Э| Post

 ooo VerizonLTE 12:49 PM
 Search
 egan Anne Fraedric
 Or most of these
 monstrosities
 1 HOUR AGO LIKE
 REPLY
 2
 Write a reply..
 Starbucks
 Hi, Megan. Thanks for the
 awesome suggestions! They
 raise some interesting food
 safety and supply chain
 concerns, but hey, maybe it'll
 just be a fun challenge for our
 product development teams
 who are used to more
 traditional sourcing
 methods. ;)
 1 HOUR AGO LIKED 13 REPLY
 Write a comment...
 Post
jackskellington84:
sophettestuff:

sanjha-a-kitani:

schmergo:
The official Starbucks facebook account reviewed my pitches for new Frappuccinos based on mythical creatures to follow the unicorn one
I love how it starts out with the dragon one which could theoretically be done and then just devolves into “it’s just blood”.


I know right jsjsjsj


I love this too much

jackskellington84: sophettestuff: sanjha-a-kitani: schmergo: The official Starbucks facebook account reviewed my pitches for new Frappu...

ploy: SHARE TMZ TMZ LLIKE 'A DOG'S PURPOSE 'A Dog's Purpose' Video Shows Terrified German Shepherd Forced to Film JANUARY 18, 2017 1:44 PM One of the dogs in the upcoming film "A Dog's Purpose" desperately resisted shooting a risky scene, but chilling footage shows filmmakers apparently forcing the animal into rushing water. TMZ obtained this video of a scene shot in a pool outside Winnipeg, Canada in November 2015. You can see a trainer forcibly shoving a German ectoimp: hillyosaurus: yowulf: This HAS to go viral. This pathetic movie is abusing animals in order to film cheap scenes for human entertainment. The dog is clearly terrified but the “trainers” have no regard for her safety. Please share and encourage your friends not to spend money on a movie that uses animal abuse to film!!! http://www.tmz.com/2017/01/18/a-dogs-purpose-german-shepherd-abuse-video/ Hi yes, ACTUAL dog trainer and dog behaviorist here. Sorry to interrupt your pitchforks and torches fest but this article is extremely misleading and is presented as a shock factor rather then presenting an actual, studied opinion of the video. If you watch the clip, which I did, there is a lot of subtle stuff going on. First of all, rushing water is scary to ANY sort of animal, let alone a German Shepard who isn’t really a water dog like a Lab. You can see how the trainer is constantly touching the dog gently on the side and loin. He is reassuring the animal while keeping a snug grip on the collar. (Which is a flat collar btw so it can’t really do any damage to the dog even with him holding it) He is also down on the animals level, not hovering above the dog. And if you look closely, you can see that this man is constantly talking to the dog, obviously reassuring the animal. Furthermore, this is a movie dog, they have dealt with all sorts of scary situations before. This is probably the very first time that this animal was introduced to this situation and I bet you money that if we saw more of the clip, you would see them repeat this process slowly and gently until the animal relaxed. Finally, you see the animal try to pull away. Again, perfectly normal for an animal that is scared, but again, you see the trainer pull the dog back (not yank it sharply back or drag it back) and then place the dog in the water. The actual time in the water is extremely brief and you can see that the trainer doesn’t let go of the dog and immediately pulls the animal out again after a few seconds. Just like putting a child in the bath tub for a little bit, the trainer is establishing that the water won’t harm the dog and kept the training session brief. Convenient that the clip stops before it shows you the trainer rewarding the animal in some way, which I can guarantee you they did. Finally, I will leave you with two things. One, if the dog was actually being abused it would be responding by trying to snap at the person holding the collar and the body language would be pure terror with the tail language and hackles. German Shepards are not scared to tell you when they don’t want to do something and this dog is no different. Two, there are so many laws and regulations in place to stop the abuse of animals in movies. There is ALWAYS a representative of these organizations on site during filming whenever there is any sort of animal involved. Don’t spread misinformation and misunderstanding please. Just like your mom forced you to eat your veggies when you were young, sometimes working with animals means encouraging them to go into situations that is way outside their instincts. Yes please read all this because you wanna know where the video ‘leak’ came from. PETA. Come on guys. dont fall for PETAs bullshit. This is the group that literally kills perfectly healthy puppies because they think ‘its better that they are dead then a pet’. So a movie thats about a dogs loyalty and the bond between humans and pets? Yeah, thats something PETA HATES.So, take all this with a huge grain of of salt. The movie might be good or bad, I dunno. (I think it will be award bait shallow ‘tearjerker’ tbh) But dont assume that an edited 30 second clip of something, means there was abuse. Even when that dog seems to go under the water. What happens? All trainers snap to getting the dog out, but the edit cuts before we see what happens. So that everyone goes ‘oh nooooes the dog ded’Im sure the dog is ok, and im sure that the trainers were just as scared for there dog and gave him lots of treats later. (and probably didnt use that animal for anymore water scenes. Maybe this will turn up some abuse. But really I think its another ploy by PETA. But hold your boycotting till theres more evidence then this clip.
ploy: SHARE
 TMZ
 TMZ
 LLIKE
 'A DOG'S PURPOSE
 'A Dog's Purpose' Video Shows
 Terrified German Shepherd
 Forced to Film
 JANUARY 18, 2017 1:44 PM
 One of the dogs in the upcoming film "A Dog's
 Purpose" desperately resisted shooting a risky
 scene, but chilling footage shows filmmakers
 apparently forcing the animal into rushing water.
 TMZ obtained this video of a scene shot in a pool
 outside Winnipeg, Canada in November 2015. You
 can see a trainer forcibly shoving a German
ectoimp:

hillyosaurus:

yowulf:


This HAS to go viral. This pathetic movie is abusing animals in order to film cheap scenes for human entertainment. The dog is clearly terrified but the “trainers” have no regard for her safety.

Please share and encourage your friends not to spend money on a movie that uses animal abuse to film!!!

http://www.tmz.com/2017/01/18/a-dogs-purpose-german-shepherd-abuse-video/


Hi yes, ACTUAL dog trainer and dog behaviorist here. Sorry to interrupt your pitchforks and torches fest but this article is extremely misleading and is presented as a shock factor rather then presenting an actual, studied opinion of the video.
If you watch the clip, which I did, there is a lot of subtle stuff going on. First of all, rushing water is scary to ANY sort of animal, let alone a German Shepard who isn’t really a water dog like a Lab. You can see how the trainer is constantly touching the dog gently on the side and loin. He is reassuring the animal while keeping a snug grip on the collar. (Which is a flat collar btw so it can’t really do any damage to the dog even with him holding it) He is also down on the animals level, not hovering above the dog. And if you look closely, you can see that this man is constantly talking to the dog, obviously reassuring the animal. Furthermore, this is a movie dog, they have dealt with all sorts of scary situations before. This is probably the very first time that this animal was introduced to this situation and I bet you money that if we saw more of the clip, you would see them repeat this process slowly and gently until the animal relaxed.
Finally, you see the animal try to pull away. Again, perfectly normal for an animal that is scared, but again, you see the trainer pull the dog back (not yank it sharply back or drag it back) and then place the dog in the water. The actual time in the water is extremely brief and you can see that the trainer doesn’t let go of the dog and immediately pulls the animal out again after a few seconds. Just like putting a child in the bath tub for a little bit, the trainer is establishing that the water won’t harm the dog and kept the training session brief. Convenient that the clip stops before it shows you the trainer rewarding the animal in some way, which I can guarantee you they did.
Finally, I will leave you with two things. One, if the dog was actually being abused it would be responding by trying to snap at the person holding the collar and the body language would be pure terror with the tail language and hackles. German Shepards are not scared to tell you when they don’t want to do something and this dog is no different. Two, there are so many laws and regulations in place to stop the abuse of animals in movies. There is ALWAYS a representative of these organizations on site during filming whenever there is any sort of animal involved. 
Don’t spread misinformation and misunderstanding please. Just like your mom forced you to eat your veggies when you were young, sometimes working with animals means encouraging them to go into situations that is way outside their instincts.

Yes please read all this because you wanna know where the video ‘leak’ came from.
PETA.
Come on guys. dont fall for PETAs bullshit. This is the group that literally kills perfectly healthy puppies because they think ‘its better that they are dead then a pet’.
So a movie thats about a dogs loyalty and the bond between humans and pets? Yeah, thats something PETA HATES.So, take all this with a huge grain of of salt.
The movie might be good or bad, I dunno. (I think it will be award bait shallow ‘tearjerker’ tbh) But dont assume that an edited 30 second clip of something, means there was abuse. Even when that dog seems to go under the water. What happens? All trainers snap to getting the dog out, but the edit cuts before we see what happens. So that everyone goes ‘oh nooooes the dog ded’Im sure the dog is ok, and im sure that the trainers were just as scared for there dog and gave him lots of treats later. (and probably didnt use that animal for anymore water scenes.
Maybe this will turn up some abuse. But really I think its another ploy by PETA. But hold your boycotting till theres more evidence then this clip.

ectoimp: hillyosaurus: yowulf: This HAS to go viral. This pathetic movie is abusing animals in order to film cheap scenes for human e...