courtneysideeye:

knivesandglitter:

poetic-ness:

incaseyuhnevaknow:

muzungus:

kitty-drake:

eatshitwhiteboy:

theuppitynegras:

social-justice-mindy:

OH MY GOD! So I was in the target with my little sister and came across this. I honestly dont even know what to say.
The attack on white women in America must be stopped. Everyday we are made to feel as though we are less than, ugly and should hate ourselves. We are encouraged to get collengin impants in our lips, breast implants and butt injections to to have black features. 
Today my little sister even told me, “Ashley, I want to be a black girl.” Do you know how that made me feel?!?!?!?!?!? I felt like I failed her. 
The media wants white women to be ashamed of themselves. And it is time to stop that. Everywhere I turn, i see black women stealing white men, like thieves in the night. I dont mean to be racist but honestly sometimes I wish we could go back to segregation.
I went on twitter to see what others were thinking and I even realized that most people saying she was ugly were INDEED black men! How am I to believe black women are beautiful if their own men dont. 
Im so upset, my little sister asked my dad if she could go tanning the other day and he just walked out of the room. What is America coming too? Why is the assault on my face, body, lips, eyes and skin so harsh?
If you ask me, most beautiful should have went to either Jennifer Lawrence or Anna Kendrick, not because their white but because physically they are stunning.

this post lmao
y’all look at this
look at what Lupita has done


I WASN’T READY

OP is crazy fam 😂



White people don’t like it up ‘em.

Wowwww lol

Wtf?



[insert audio clip of kanye saying “huh” over and  over again]

thebigblackwolfe:

sapphicnymph:

leaving Laverne Cox off of the Time top 100 despite the overwhelming support she received is an act of violence and erasure towards trans women

SAY THAT SHIT LIKE FIVE MORE TIMES PLEASE

foxinu:

nsfwjynx:

the-pink-mist:

There was a split second there where his like, “wait, what? bro what are you doing?” 
On more serious note, PTSD dogs for veterans are so fucking therapeutic. They’re like the one person you can spill your guts to and never worry about ever being judged or have that secret divulged. There are times when I definitely prefer the company of a dog over a human. 

Therapy animals save lives.

These dogs are even still so much more amazing. They check rooms before their handler enters, so they can clear it to help the person feel safe. Like in the gif, they are there when panic attacks or nightmares occur, to be something for the person to help ground themselves on, or yes just to turn on the lights. Even more amazing, many people are able to reduce their medication when they have a PTSD service dog there to help them. These dogs are useful for not just veterans, but also victims of abuse, accident trauma, natural disasters, and others. Their training allows them to be useful in situations where medical assistance is needed, as well. Some PTSD dogs are trained to recognize repetitive behaviours in handlers, and signal the handler to break the repetition and stopping the behaviour and possibly injury. 
Service dogs in general are just awesome. Remember to respect any that you see out in public. They are not there for you to walk up to and play with, even the puppies!
he inhaled his scent. he smelled of (ingredient 1), (ingredient 2) and something undefinable, that was uniquely (name of buttsex partner)
every single fanfiction uploaded in the last two years oh my god  (via brood-of-froods)
bunfoot:

owls-parliament:

oh my god 

her name is rin nakai and look at her fight history
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!!!!!!!!!!