allahyil3analsohyouniyeh:

priceofliberty:

thefreelioness:

The NYPD tried to start a hashtag outpouring of positive memories with their police force. 

If this were ever a bad idea, it was probably the worst idea for arguably the most corrupt police force in America. 

via Vice:

What the person running the Twitter account probably failed to realize is that most people’s interactions with the cops fall into a few categories:

1. You are talking to them to get help after you or someone you knew was robbed, beaten, murdered, or sexually assaulted.

2. You are getting arrested. 

3. You are getting beaten by the police.

In category 1, you are probably not going to be like, “Oh, let me take a selfie with you fine officers so I can remember this moment,” and the other two categories are not things that the NYPD would like people on social media talking about. Additionally, the people who use Twitter a lot (and who aren’t Sonic the Hedgehog roleplayers) are the type who love fucking with authority figures. In any case, #myNYPD quickly became a trending topic in the United States, largely because people were tweeting and retweeting horrific images of police brutality perpetrated by New York City cops.

In which the NYPD’s attempt at “public relations” backfires tremendously.

this had me dying of laughter


fozmeadows:

Hypothesis:

We have, as a society, such a completely disordered, distorted perception of female bodies that the vast majority of people are incapable of recognising what “overweight” actually looks like on a woman, let alone “healthy”. As such, we’re now at a point where women…



betterthandarkchocolate:

thelipstickontherim:

Bring socks!!!! #homeless #donate #homelessness

As are toiletries!

I didn’t know this.

betterthandarkchocolate:

thelipstickontherim:

Bring socks!!!! #homeless #donate #homelessness

As are toiletries!

I didn’t know this.


“Ignorance is acceptable up to a point. For instance, when I was 12 years old my mom had to take me aside in the hippie store and explain to me why I, a 12-year-old white girl, could not wear a dashiki. But I was 12, I didn’t know what a dashiki was and I just thought it was a neat pattern. Now I understand. You don’t play dress-up with other people’s cultures to assert your own uniqueness and specialness.”
Avril Lavigne’s New Video Wins The Gold At The Cultural Appropriation Olympics By Robyn Pennacchia (x)

dynastylnoire:

raresenses:

dynastylnoire:

crystalitesummerstar:

dynastylnoire:

afrodyke:

justlizthoughts:

So you know how people like to make it seem like Black people have no buying power. Well, if you stroll through the hair aisle in Target you’ll find a plethora of products made for our hair in mind. I remember when I first went natural the only okay product I could find at Target was Giovanni Direct Leave-in.
I know it may seem a little far-fetched because it is after all just hair products. But considering the fact that most Black women are still relaxing their hair (I’m not judging, just look flawless) I think this speaks volumes of our buying potential.

yeah, we have a large buying power, but the products being made for us are not created by us. Or at least the ones being made by us are not sold in a large volume.
What does it mean when Clariol, a producer of relaxer, is now selling products for natural hair?

The biggest indicator for me was when suddenly Pantene, Suave and all the other notably white hair care companies began to make products with out sulfates and other chemicals that black hair blogs are none to report that we should not put in our hair. 
It was a clever move in that these new shampoos/conditioners they are making don’t say “black hair care” and therefore appeal to whites that want to ride the latest hair care craze without really knowing why it’s a important (I.E all the different exotic oil shampoos that come out every year) . It also can get the attention of black people with natural hair that are specifically looking for  ___free products without the shampoo/conditioner being thrown in the “black hair care aisle”

But seriously, we need to think about deeply. We spend over 8 billion dollars on this industry, yet only 3% comes back to us and that’s a serious problem. Seeing these larger companies prove how much power we have in the economy yet also show a sign of them pushing us out of the money making side of things. We seriously need to get our shit together and have the natural hair industry on lock by making it almost entirely black owned or literally every other ethic group is gonna be rolling to the bank except for us yet again.

How do we do that?
I ask in all honesty because I don’t know how to even begin to do something like that.
Also the prices that are reflected in those black owned products are not what their target market can afford.
I buy carol’s daughter and shae moisture but I ration how I use it because I can’t afford to spritz as much as my hair may need it. It’s definitely a “treat” for my hair when you consider the things our hair needs can be found in the baking aisle of most organic grocery stores.
If we are going to talk about us getting our shit together as black business people, we seriously have to examine why it’s okay for hair grease to be 15 dollars or a crop top 40 dollars since black people are selling it?
How can we support black businesses if we can’t afford their products?

^^^^ Oh my god, thank you for saying this! I’m glad we’re even having this conversation! It angers me to no end that Black-owned beauty companies sell their products for outrageous prices. Like, we are trying to support your endeavors, so why TF are you committing highway robbery with these prices? It’s a great example for class-discrimination within our ethnic group here. And I can’t say that I will ever break my bank to support Black-owned companies that are seemingly committed to ripping us off, when we just want to take care of our unique hair.
The only company so far that I patronize is owned by a Black woman in Ohio, her business is whipped goods, and I totally recommend all her stuff. Still not that price-friendly but it’s WAY more affordable than Carol’s Daughter. Hope I helped somebody.

good looking out sis
eta: her prices are the same as Carols. :/

dynastylnoire:

raresenses:

dynastylnoire:

crystalitesummerstar:

dynastylnoire:

afrodyke:

justlizthoughts:

So you know how people like to make it seem like Black people have no buying power. Well, if you stroll through the hair aisle in Target you’ll find a plethora of products made for our hair in mind. I remember when I first went natural the only okay product I could find at Target was Giovanni Direct Leave-in.

I know it may seem a little far-fetched because it is after all just hair products. But considering the fact that most Black women are still relaxing their hair (I’m not judging, just look flawless) I think this speaks volumes of our buying potential.

yeah, we have a large buying power, but the products being made for us are not created by us. Or at least the ones being made by us are not sold in a large volume.

What does it mean when Clariol, a producer of relaxer, is now selling products for natural hair?

The biggest indicator for me was when suddenly Pantene, Suave and all the other notably white hair care companies began to make products with out sulfates and other chemicals that black hair blogs are none to report that we should not put in our hair.

It was a clever move in that these new shampoos/conditioners they are making don’t say “black hair care” and therefore appeal to whites that want to ride the latest hair care craze without really knowing why it’s a important (I.E all the different exotic oil shampoos that come out every year) . It also can get the attention of black people with natural hair that are specifically looking for  ___free products without the shampoo/conditioner being thrown in the “black hair care aisle”

But seriously, we need to think about deeply. We spend over 8 billion dollars on this industry, yet only 3% comes back to us and that’s a serious problem. Seeing these larger companies prove how much power we have in the economy yet also show a sign of them pushing us out of the money making side of things. We seriously need to get our shit together and have the natural hair industry on lock by making it almost entirely black owned or literally every other ethic group is gonna be rolling to the bank except for us yet again.

How do we do that?

I ask in all honesty because I don’t know how to even begin to do something like that.

Also the prices that are reflected in those black owned products are not what their target market can afford.

I buy carol’s daughter and shae moisture but I ration how I use it because I can’t afford to spritz as much as my hair may need it. It’s definitely a “treat” for my hair when you consider the things our hair needs can be found in the baking aisle of most organic grocery stores.

If we are going to talk about us getting our shit together as black business people, we seriously have to examine why it’s okay for hair grease to be 15 dollars or a crop top 40 dollars since black people are selling it?


How can we support black businesses if we can’t afford their products?

^^^^ Oh my god, thank you for saying this! I’m glad we’re even having this conversation! 

It angers me to no end that Black-owned beauty companies sell their products for outrageous prices. Like, we are trying to support your endeavors, so why TF are you committing highway robbery with these prices? It’s a great example for class-discrimination within our ethnic group here. And I can’t say that I will ever break my bank to support Black-owned companies that are seemingly committed to ripping us off, when we just want to take care of our unique hair.


The only company so far that I patronize is owned by a Black woman in Ohio, her business is whipped goods, and I totally recommend all her stuff. Still not that price-friendly but it’s WAY more affordable than Carol’s Daughter. Hope I helped somebody.

good looking out sis

eta: her prices are the same as Carols. :/


Natural Haired Men Pick-up Lines

dynastylnoire:

queenafrodite:

goddessofallgods:

4capproved:

This is happening.

If you twist mine, I’ll twist yours.

Let’s go to your place and see how real this shrinkage is.

You want to go halfsies on coconut oil?

Awwww

I wish I had this happen to me

Dealing with guys with locs saying things like, ” I’d retwist your new growth but you’d have to sit between my legs so.. we’d never get anything done.”

"You want to go halfsies on coconut oil?" Yasssss. 




socimages:

How to lie with statistics: The relationship between Florida’s Stand Your Ground law and gun deaths.
At Junk Charts, Kaiser Fung drew my attention to a graph released by Reuters.  It is so deeply misleading that I loathe to expose your eyeballs to it.  So, I offer you the mishmash above.
The original figure is on the left.  It counts the number of gun deaths in Florida.  A line rises, bounces a little, reaches a 2nd highest peak labeled “2005, Florida enacted its ‘Stand Your Ground’ law,” and falls precipitously.
What do you see?
Most people see a huge fall-off in the number of gun deaths after Stand Your Ground was passed.  But that’s not what the graph shows.  A quick look at the vertical axis reveals that the gun deaths are counted from top (0) to bottom (800).  The highest peaks are the fewest gun deaths and the lowest ones are the most.  A rise in the line, in other words, reveals a reduction in gun deaths.  The graph on the right — flipped both horizontally and vertically — is more intuitive to most: a rising line reflects a rise in the number of gun deaths and a dropping a drop.
The proper conclusion, then, is that gun deaths skyrocketed after Stand Your Ground was enacted.
This example is a great reminder that we bring our own assumptions to our reading of any illustration of data.  The original graph may have broken convention, making the intuitive read of the image incorrect, but the data is, presumably, sound.  It’s our responsibility, then, to always do our due diligence in absorbing information.  The alternative is to be duped.
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College and the author of Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions, with Myra Marx Ferree. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

socimages:

How to lie with statistics: The relationship between Florida’s Stand Your Ground law and gun deaths.

At Junk Charts, Kaiser Fung drew my attention to a graph released by Reuters.  It is so deeply misleading that I loathe to expose your eyeballs to it.  So, I offer you the mishmash above.

The original figure is on the left.  It counts the number of gun deaths in Florida.  A line rises, bounces a little, reaches a 2nd highest peak labeled “2005, Florida enacted its ‘Stand Your Ground’ law,” and falls precipitously.

What do you see?

Most people see a huge fall-off in the number of gun deaths after Stand Your Ground was passed.  But that’s not what the graph shows.  A quick look at the vertical axis reveals that the gun deaths are counted from top (0) to bottom (800).  The highest peaks are the fewest gun deaths and the lowest ones are the most.  A rise in the line, in other words, reveals a reduction in gun deaths.  The graph on the right — flipped both horizontally and vertically — is more intuitive to most: a rising line reflects a rise in the number of gun deaths and a dropping a drop.

The proper conclusion, then, is that gun deaths skyrocketed after Stand Your Ground was enacted.

This example is a great reminder that we bring our own assumptions to our reading of any illustration of data.  The original graph may have broken convention, making the intuitive read of the image incorrect, but the data is, presumably, sound.  It’s our responsibility, then, to always do our due diligence in absorbing information.  The alternative is to be duped.

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College and the author of Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions, with Myra Marx Ferree. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.


Breakaway Theme
Design by Athenability
Powered by Tumblr