My Dichotomy
About ▾ Search ▾Archive Theme ▾

slurhater:

jamietheignorantamerican:

YES, there are people who find cultural appropriation and the use of slurs “ok” with them.

Does that mean it’s “ok” to do it to EVERYONE, even if they might be personally offended by it?

nOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Also it is very important to realize that your irl friends saying this shit is ok may be out of a desire to not start drama and get into arguments. I fucking detest when straight people say faggot but I have a few straight friends who do and it is just not worth the shit to tell them to stop.

(via dynastylnoire)

postracialcomments:

knowledgeequalsblackpower:

descentintotyranny:

Justices approve state bans on affirmative action
The decision could lead more states to enact bans against race preferences in university admissions, but it does not affect university affirmative action programs in other states.
Apr. 22 2014
The Supreme Court dealt another blow to affirmative action programs Tuesday, upholding the right of states to ban racial preferences in university admissions.
The 6-2 decision came in a case brought by Michigan, where a voter-approved initiative banning affirmative action had been tied up in court for a decade.
Seven other states — California, Florida, Washington, Arizona, Nebraska, Oklahoma and New Hampshire – have similar bans. Now, others may follow suit.
But the ruling, which was expected after the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Michigan law, did not jeopardize the wide use of racial preferences in many of the 42 states without bans. Such affirmative action programs were upheld, though subjected to increased scrutiny, in the high court’s June ruling involving the University of Texas.
"This case is not about how the debate (over racial preferences) should be resolved," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in announcing the ruling. But to stop Michigan voters from making their own decision on affirmative action would be "an unprecedented restriction on a fundamental right held by all in common."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor read a summary of her lengthy, 58-page dissent from the bench, in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined. She said the decision creates “a two-tiered system of political change” by requiring only race-based proposals to surmount the state Constitution, while all other proposals can go to school boards.
As a result of the ruling, said Sotomayor, a product of affirmative action policies, minority enrollment will decline at Michigan’s public universities, just as it has in California and elsewhere. “The numbers do not lie,” she said.
The decision was splintered, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joining Kennedy’s opinion; Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas concurring in a separate opinion; and Justice Stephen Breyer, more often aligned with the court’s liberal wing, concurring in yet another opinion.
Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because of a conflict of interest from her time as U.S. solicitor general.
The decision in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action comes 10 years after two seminal Supreme Court rulings out of the University of Michigan. One struck down the undergraduate school’s use of a point system that included race to guide admissions. The other upheld the law school’s consideration of race among many other factors.
Immediately after the law school ruling, opponents of racial preferences set to work on a state constitutional amendment that said Michigan “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or natural origin.” Voters approved it by a 58%-42% margin in November 2006.
A federal district court upheld the initiative, but a sharply divided appeals court ruled that it violated minorities’ equal protection rights under the Constitution.
The writing appeared to be on the wall at the Supreme Court, based on the influence of Roberts, an opponent of racial preferences who famously wrote in another case several years ago that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
But in this case, Kennedy was the man to watch. He wrote the court’s 1996 Romer v. Evans opinion striking down a Colorado referendum that banned local governments from enacting gay rights laws. Yet he had been less enthusiastic about the use of racial preferences in several recent cases.
Opponents of the Michigan law called it a form of “political restructuring” that stops minorities from seeking admission to a university the same way an athlete or legacy applicant can. Instead, they said in an argument that Sotomayor and Ginsburg endorsed, minorities had to change the state Constitution.
In striking down the ban, the 6th Circuit cited the Supreme Court’s 1969 and 1982 rulings in cases from Akron and Seattle. In those cases, the high court struck down voter-approved initiatives that had blocked the cities’ pro-minority housing and school busing policies.
But Kennedy said the appeals court misread those earlier rulings. In the new Michigan case, he said, the paramount concern is the right of citizens to deliberate, debate and act — in this case, through a constitutional amendment.
The debate has practical as well as legal implications. In Michigan and California particularly, the bans have reduced black and Hispanic enrollments at elite universities and at law, medical and professional schools. The percentages of African Americans among entering freshmen at the University of California-Berkeley, UCLA and the University of Michigan were the lowest among the nation’s top universities in 2011.
During oral arguments in October, Michigan solicitor general John Bursch disputed the validity of those statistics. He said changes in 2010 that allowed students to check more than one racial box skewed the figures.
While Michigan’s argument focused on equal rights for white and minority students, some conservative scholars go further. They say doing away with affirmative action gives minority students a better chance of succeeding at less competitive schools.

EVERY SINGLE CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION IS BEING GUTTED!!!!!!!!!!

If yall aren’t angry over this then….

postracialcomments:

knowledgeequalsblackpower:

descentintotyranny:

Justices approve state bans on affirmative action

The decision could lead more states to enact bans against race preferences in university admissions, but it does not affect university affirmative action programs in other states.

Apr. 22 2014

The Supreme Court dealt another blow to affirmative action programs Tuesday, upholding the right of states to ban racial preferences in university admissions.

The 6-2 decision came in a case brought by Michigan, where a voter-approved initiative banning affirmative action had been tied up in court for a decade.

Seven other states — California, Florida, Washington, Arizona, Nebraska, Oklahoma and New Hampshire – have similar bans. Now, others may follow suit.

But the ruling, which was expected after the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Michigan law, did not jeopardize the wide use of racial preferences in many of the 42 states without bans. Such affirmative action programs were upheld, though subjected to increased scrutiny, in the high court’s June ruling involving the University of Texas.

"This case is not about how the debate (over racial preferences) should be resolved," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in announcing the ruling. But to stop Michigan voters from making their own decision on affirmative action would be "an unprecedented restriction on a fundamental right held by all in common."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor read a summary of her lengthy, 58-page dissent from the bench, in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined. She said the decision creates “a two-tiered system of political change” by requiring only race-based proposals to surmount the state Constitution, while all other proposals can go to school boards.

As a result of the ruling, said Sotomayor, a product of affirmative action policies, minority enrollment will decline at Michigan’s public universities, just as it has in California and elsewhere. “The numbers do not lie,” she said.

The decision was splintered, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joining Kennedy’s opinion; Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas concurring in a separate opinion; and Justice Stephen Breyer, more often aligned with the court’s liberal wing, concurring in yet another opinion.

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because of a conflict of interest from her time as U.S. solicitor general.

The decision in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action comes 10 years after two seminal Supreme Court rulings out of the University of Michigan. One struck down the undergraduate school’s use of a point system that included race to guide admissions. The other upheld the law school’s consideration of race among many other factors.

Immediately after the law school ruling, opponents of racial preferences set to work on a state constitutional amendment that said Michigan “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or natural origin.” Voters approved it by a 58%-42% margin in November 2006.

A federal district court upheld the initiative, but a sharply divided appeals court ruled that it violated minorities’ equal protection rights under the Constitution.

The writing appeared to be on the wall at the Supreme Court, based on the influence of Roberts, an opponent of racial preferences who famously wrote in another case several years ago that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

But in this case, Kennedy was the man to watch. He wrote the court’s 1996 Romer v. Evans opinion striking down a Colorado referendum that banned local governments from enacting gay rights laws. Yet he had been less enthusiastic about the use of racial preferences in several recent cases.

Opponents of the Michigan law called it a form of “political restructuring” that stops minorities from seeking admission to a university the same way an athlete or legacy applicant can. Instead, they said in an argument that Sotomayor and Ginsburg endorsed, minorities had to change the state Constitution.

In striking down the ban, the 6th Circuit cited the Supreme Court’s 1969 and 1982 rulings in cases from Akron and Seattle. In those cases, the high court struck down voter-approved initiatives that had blocked the cities’ pro-minority housing and school busing policies.

But Kennedy said the appeals court misread those earlier rulings. In the new Michigan case, he said, the paramount concern is the right of citizens to deliberate, debate and act — in this case, through a constitutional amendment.

The debate has practical as well as legal implications. In Michigan and California particularly, the bans have reduced black and Hispanic enrollments at elite universities and at law, medical and professional schools. The percentages of African Americans among entering freshmen at the University of California-Berkeley, UCLA and the University of Michigan were the lowest among the nation’s top universities in 2011.

During oral arguments in October, Michigan solicitor general John Bursch disputed the validity of those statistics. He said changes in 2010 that allowed students to check more than one racial box skewed the figures.

While Michigan’s argument focused on equal rights for white and minority students, some conservative scholars go further. They say doing away with affirmative action gives minority students a better chance of succeeding at less competitive schools.

EVERY SINGLE CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION IS BEING GUTTED!!!!!!!!!!

If yall aren’t angry over this then….

"Colonialism is when bees bust their asses to make honey but all the bottles look like bears!"

-

Kim Crosby’s Facebook page(which quoted me yesterday!)

Holy shit, best quote fucking ever, holy shit.

(via gadaboutgreen)

OMFG I don’t LOL often but Goddamn.

(via seramiles)

Perfect analogy is perfect.

(via jakigriot)

(via thatdudeemu)

fish-dinner-connoisseur:

damnedblackbeauty:

"We were bumped from two planes, and white passengers were put on those planes. We had to stay overnight in one city before we could catch a bus the rest of the trip to Daytona Beach. We came from California — and I knew what discrimination was — but it wasn’t a legislated thing like it was in the South. When I got to Jacksonville, I just walked into the white ladies’ restroom just to recover some of my dignity and my sense of myself because I was horrified by it." - Rachel Robinson [x]

White ppl were some real trashy ass assholes back then

still

Good correction

(via thatdudeemu)

subbysarie:

note-a-bear:

haymitchdrinksfirewhiskey:

ediebrit:

oh my fucking god

SOMEONE FINALLY SAID IT.

SHOTS FIRED.

holy shit that went deep

Perfection

(via postracialcomments)

21stcenturyprogressive:

We’ll call it, “The War on Drugs.”

21stcenturyprogressive:

We’ll call it, “The War on Drugs.”

(via dynastylnoire)

11 Facts About Environmental Racism

  1. Environmental racism is the geographic relationship between environmental degradation and low-income or minority communities.
  2. The people populating areas within 2 miles of our nation’s hazardous waste facilities are by majority of color.
  3. Racial disparities of color exist in 9 out of 10 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regions.
  4. Existing laws and land-use controls have not been adequately applied in order to reduce health risks for those living in or near toxic “hot spots”.
  5. African Americans are 79 percent more likely than whites to live in neighborhoods where industrial pollution is suspected of causing the greatest health dangers.
  6. A Commission for Racial Justice study found that three of the five largest waste facilities dealing with hazardous materials in the United States are located in poor black communities.This study also showed that three out of every five African American and Latinos live in areas near toxic waste sites, as well as live in areas where the levels of poverty are well above the national average.
  7. Poverty-stricken Native American communities face some of the worst toxic pollution problems in the country.
  8. “Approximately half of all Native Americans live in communities with an uncontrolled toxic waste site,” according to the Commission for Racial Justice.
  9. Living near toxic waste facilities and in low income housing affects almost every aspect of life including food, water, and air. Homes, schools, and workplaces are deemed unsafe because of environmental hazards in the buildings, which are dilapidated and outdated.
  10. Children of color who live in poor areas are more likely to attend schools filled with asbestos, live in homes with peeling lead paint, and play in parks that are contaminated.
  11. These same children are nearly 9 times more likely than economically advantaged children to be exposed to lead levels so high they can cause severe learning disabilities and neurological disorders. 96 percent of African American children who live in inner cities have unsafe amounts of lead in their blood.

(via fyeahcracker)

in case anyone missed the shitshow that is duke university and the durham police department

charke105:

from what i understand some white girl reported that her backpack was stolen from the library by a guy with an afro…

and the police response was to yank a black male off the bus, push him onto the ground when he clearly was not resisting, grope him, pepper spray him, and arrest…

How Benedict Cumberbatch's family made a fortune from slavery

mothsfly:

sugarbooty:

Slavery built the Cumberbatch fortune, which at its height in the mid-18th century made them one of Britain’s wealthiest families, owning at least seven Barbados sugar plantations and a stately home near Taunton, Somerset.

THE IRONY

" Cumberbatch has also revealed that his mother, the actress Wanda Ventham, had urged him not to use his real surname professionally, in case it made him a target for reparation claims by the descendants of slaves."

They knew, they knew where they came from, and still DO benefit from slavery white supremacy, and they don’t want to have to give that up, or what they think is worst, give back. I have no sympathy for him or his family. I hate his face, and see through this thinly veiled attempt at making an attempt at shredding light on the atrocities that his ancestors committed.

(via reverseracism)

You were not born to starve, binge, purge, and die. You are meant for such greater things. You deserve happiness, and you were born to obtain happiness.

(via screwthisimrecovering)

The people around sure do love saying offensive black jokes esp. to ME. do you know any white jokes that would make them stfu? or maybe offend them? I cant think of any

sneezyfbaby

whitepeoplesaidwhat:

Just call them white and racist. Nothing offends white people more than being called ‘white people’ and ‘racist’.

-Holly

america-wakiewakie:

Oakland Spent $74 Million Settling 417 Police Brutality Lawsuits | Oakland Police Beat

A Catholic priest who said an officer put him in a chokehold and slammed his head into a glass door. A woman who said she shouldn’t have been handcuffed when officers arrested her.
A father who claimed officers beat him in the hallway outside of his child’s hospital room until his head was bloody. A bank robber who was shot by officers after a high-speed chase. A man whose head was slammed into something so hard that the bones in his face broke.
In each situation the Oakland Police Department was sued. And in each one, the City of Oakland chose to settle out of court rather than take the case to trial.
A review of Oakland City Attorney lawsuit data and hundreds of federal and state court cases has found that since 1990, Oakland has spent $74 million dollars to settle at least 417 lawsuits accusing its police officers of brutality, misconduct and other civil rights violations.


Oakland spends more on civil-rights police lawsuits than nearly any other California law enforcement agency, with multimillion-dollar settlements coming directly out of funds that could go to libraries, police and fire services or road repair.
Supporters of the Oakland Police Department say that high number is a reflection of the city’s willingness to settle at any cost. But Oakland Police Beat’s analysis found that the City of Oakland has successfully defended itself against many lawsuits it considers to be unfounded.
Our investigation found that more than 500 officers were named in those lawsuits. At least 72 of those officers were named in three or more of the suits. Settlement amounts per lawsuits range from $100 to the nearly $11 million paid out following the so-called Riders scandal, where more than 100 plaintiffs accused officers of beating, kidnapping and planting evidence on suspects.
Historically, the number of OPD-related lawsuits filed against the city varies from year to year. But over the last three years the number of cases settled dropped, leaving some — like Oakland civil rights attorney Jim Chanin — cautiously hopeful that long-sought-after reforms are beginning to impact the Oakland Police Department.
(Pictured: An Occupy Oakland protester is arrested in the early morning hours of Thurs, November 3, 2011 in Frank Ogawa Plaza. Lawsuits alleging excessive force by OPD officers during the demonstrations have cost the city more than $6 million in settlements. Photo by Elijah Nouvelage)
(Read Full Text)

america-wakiewakie:

Oakland Spent $74 Million Settling 417 Police Brutality Lawsuits | Oakland Police Beat

A Catholic priest who said an officer put him in a chokehold and slammed his head into a glass door. A woman who said she shouldn’t have been handcuffed when officers arrested her.

A father who claimed officers beat him in the hallway outside of his child’s hospital room until his head was bloody. A bank robber who was shot by officers after a high-speed chase. A man whose head was slammed into something so hard that the bones in his face broke.

In each situation the Oakland Police Department was sued. And in each one, the City of Oakland chose to settle out of court rather than take the case to trial.

A review of Oakland City Attorney lawsuit data and hundreds of federal and state court cases has found that since 1990, Oakland has spent $74 million dollars to settle at least 417 lawsuits accusing its police officers of brutality, misconduct and other civil rights violations.

Oakland spends more on civil-rights police lawsuits than nearly any other California law enforcement agency, with multimillion-dollar settlements coming directly out of funds that could go to libraries, police and fire services or road repair.

Supporters of the Oakland Police Department say that high number is a reflection of the city’s willingness to settle at any cost. But Oakland Police Beat’s analysis found that the City of Oakland has successfully defended itself against many lawsuits it considers to be unfounded.

Our investigation found that more than 500 officers were named in those lawsuits. At least 72 of those officers were named in three or more of the suits. Settlement amounts per lawsuits range from $100 to the nearly $11 million paid out following the so-called Riders scandal, where more than 100 plaintiffs accused officers of beating, kidnapping and planting evidence on suspects.

Historically, the number of OPD-related lawsuits filed against the city varies from year to year. But over the last three years the number of cases settled dropped, leaving some — like Oakland civil rights attorney Jim Chanin — cautiously hopeful that long-sought-after reforms are beginning to impact the Oakland Police Department.

(Pictured: An Occupy Oakland protester is arrested in the early morning hours of Thurs, November 3, 2011 in Frank Ogawa Plaza. Lawsuits alleging excessive force by OPD officers during the demonstrations have cost the city more than $6 million in settlements. Photo by Elijah Nouvelage)

(Read Full Text)

(via fyeahcracker)

This 420 take a moment of silence for all the people who have had lost their freedom because of non-violent drug charges.

(via thatdudeemu)

womanistgrrrlcollective:

bad-wolf-of-baskerville:

authocracy:

kingcheddarxvii:

do you think God ever gets sad like “what do you mean you don’t love yourself i worked so hard on you….”

…why is this so uplifting

I’m not even religious and this makes me smile.

I usually don’t. What I think instead is, I am a product of billions of years of evolution and that has to count for something.