Telled
Telled

Telled

Behind The
Behind The

Behind The

First Time
First Time

First Time

Brad
Brad

Brad

Buy
Buy

Buy

When Your
When Your

When Your

Nicholas
Nicholas

Nicholas

No Clue
No Clue

No Clue

For Her
For Her

For Her

Anyoning
Anyoning

Anyoning

🔥 | Latest

Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: ...

Bodies , Girls, and Head: on rapist A WOMAN made preg nant by a rapist shot him ten times and cut his head off after authori- ties refused to let her have an abortion. The victim hurled the severed head into her vil- lage square, shoutin that her attacker ha toyed with her honour", The man had taken nude photos of her and blackmailed her before raping her repeatedly The 26-year-old has been hailed a heroine for her actions by women's groups in Turkey spacetool: highladyofthesith: transgirlpinup: theblondlesbianfromthesnakehouse: gavinscreamingmichaelyelling: time-is-a-many-splendored-thing: douglasmurphy: rainbowcoffin: c-h-0-w: nightwife: Always reblog Woah well he really should have worn more protective clothing if he didn’t want that to happensounds to me like he was asking for it Are we really sure he was actually shot and decapitated? Idk, sounds like something he would’ve made up. Guys make false decapitation accusations all the time, you know.  If he didn’t want to be decapitated, he shouldn’t have worn a shirt that showed off his neck I mean, not all woman decapitate people. I’m not like that. I’m sure he somehow liked it Look, I’ve heard men’s bodies have a way of just rejecting a decapitation. He shouldn’t have been out by himself…. She did nothing wrong. She was just having a bit of fun. You know, girls will be girls. He shouldn’t be so uptight about it.
Bodies , Girls, and Head: on rapist
 A WOMAN made preg
 nant by a rapist shot
 him ten times and cut
 his head off after authori-
 ties refused to let her
 have an abortion.
 The victim hurled the
 severed head into her vil-
 lage square, shoutin
 that her attacker ha
 toyed with her honour",
 The man had taken
 nude photos of her and
 blackmailed her before
 raping her repeatedly
 The 26-year-old has
 been hailed a heroine for
 her actions by women's
 groups in Turkey
spacetool:
highladyofthesith:

transgirlpinup:

theblondlesbianfromthesnakehouse:

gavinscreamingmichaelyelling:

time-is-a-many-splendored-thing:

douglasmurphy:

rainbowcoffin:

c-h-0-w:

nightwife:

Always reblog

Woah

well he really should have worn more protective clothing if he didn’t want that to happensounds to me like he was asking for it

Are we really sure he was actually shot and decapitated? Idk, sounds like something he would’ve made up. Guys make false decapitation accusations all the time, you know. 

If he didn’t want to be decapitated, he shouldn’t have worn a shirt that showed off his neck

I mean, not all woman decapitate people. I’m not like that.


I’m sure he somehow liked it


Look, I’ve heard men’s bodies have a way of just rejecting a decapitation.

He shouldn’t have been out by himself….


She did nothing wrong. She was just having a bit of fun. You know, girls will be girls. He shouldn’t be so uptight about it.

spacetool: highladyofthesith: transgirlpinup: theblondlesbianfromthesnakehouse: gavinscreamingmichaelyelling: time-is-a-many-splendored-...

Ass, Fail, and Fucking: Jessica Liebman ajessicaliebman Follow Hey, I wrote something! I've been hiring people for 10 years, and I still swear bya simple rule: If someone doesn't send a thank you email, don't hire them. I've been hiring people for 10 years, and I still swear by a simple rule: if s An executive managing editor who has hired hundreds of people believes candidates who send thank you emails show they want the job. businessinsider.com Muging M. Zhang @muqingmzhang Follow White people's fixation on inconsequential social norms is a way to structurally keep out non-white people who lack the cultural capital and privilege to know every one of these inane social rules we're supposed to perform to be granted the jobs and resources we fucking deserve. Jessica Liebman @jessicaliebman Hey, I wrote something!. I've been hiring people for 10 years, and I still swear by a simple rule: If someone doesn't send a thank you email, don't hire them. businessinsider.com/how-to-write-t.. Muqing M. Zhang @muqingmzhang Follow As people who lack white or class privilege know, not possessing this cultural capital causes intense anxiety and alienation. Networking events, office small talk, interviews are often dreadful experiences bc we're being judged according to rules that were set up for us to fail. Muqing M. Zhang @muqingmzhang Follow Everyone who has experienced the dread & anxiety of being in a room full of privileged white people and literally not knowing what they're talking about and second guessing everything you do, knows that these "proper politeness" rules are just a way to alienate & marginalize us. Muqing M. Zhang Follow muingmzhang These social norms of the dominant group create intense emotional strain for marginalized peoples. They cause immense mental labor for us to learn and mimic these behaviors, fear that resources will be withheld, and anxiety when we can't contort ourselves to fit their demands. thesunshineshow: kushonthecoast: siryouarebeingmocked: yourpoliticsarestupid: uncommonbish: THISTHISTHIS, and linguistic prescriptivism also falls into this category. Completely pointless, historically arbitrary way to keep TALENT + MERIT as secondary qualifiers. “First impressions matter” my ass. Get Gen Xs out of hiring positions Someone didn’t send a thank you email. I always love it when some idiot takes a single person’s actions and uses them to generalize about “white people” or “men” or whoever. white people’s fixations on inconsequential social norms Who wants to tell this guy about, say, Japanese tea ceremonies? In fact, this statement is not only racist against white people, it’s racist against non-whites too. the jobs we [CENSORED] deserve Isn’t that for the hiring manager to determine, not you? If you’re throwing this pseudoinellectual, racist, self-entitled tantrum over a single hiring manager requiring a minor courtesy, why would anyone want to hire you? Do you think most white applicants are automatically going know they should send a thank you letter? “First impressions matter” my ass. You…you do realize that concept isn’t remotely limited to Gen Xers, right? How fucking low does the bar have to be that asking for a thank you is too fucking much? Pathetic doesn’t even begin to cover it. I thought it was common sense to say thank you for getting hired but it turns out I’ve been a superior, high class white male all along. I learn so much on Tumblr everyday. “nonwhites are idiotic caveman with zero basic social skills” sounds kind of racist to me.
Ass, Fail, and Fucking: Jessica Liebman
 ajessicaliebman
 Follow
 Hey, I wrote something! I've been hiring
 people for 10 years, and I still swear bya
 simple rule: If someone doesn't send a thank
 you email, don't hire them.
 I've been hiring people for 10 years, and I still swear by a simple rule: if s
 An executive managing editor who has hired hundreds of people believes
 candidates who send thank you emails show they want the job.
 businessinsider.com

 Muging M. Zhang
 @muqingmzhang
 Follow
 White people's fixation on
 inconsequential social norms is a way to
 structurally keep out non-white people
 who lack the cultural capital and
 privilege to know every one of these
 inane social rules we're supposed to
 perform to be granted the jobs and
 resources we fucking deserve.
 Jessica Liebman @jessicaliebman
 Hey, I wrote something!. I've been hiring people for 10 years, and I still
 swear by a simple rule: If someone doesn't send a thank you email, don't hire
 them. businessinsider.com/how-to-write-t..

 Muqing M. Zhang
 @muqingmzhang
 Follow
 As people who lack white or class
 privilege know, not possessing this
 cultural capital causes intense anxiety
 and alienation. Networking events, office
 small talk, interviews are often dreadful
 experiences bc we're being judged
 according to rules that were set up for us
 to fail.

 Muqing M. Zhang
 @muqingmzhang
 Follow
 Everyone who has experienced the dread
 & anxiety of being in a room full of
 privileged white people and literally not
 knowing what they're talking about and
 second guessing everything you do,
 knows that these "proper politeness"
 rules are just a way to alienate &
 marginalize us.

 Muqing M. Zhang
 Follow
 muingmzhang
 These social norms of the dominant
 group create intense emotional strain for
 marginalized peoples. They cause
 immense mental labor for us to learn and
 mimic these behaviors, fear that
 resources will be withheld, and anxiety
 when we can't contort ourselves to fit
 their demands.
thesunshineshow:
kushonthecoast:


siryouarebeingmocked:


yourpoliticsarestupid:

uncommonbish:

THISTHISTHIS, and linguistic prescriptivism also falls into this category. Completely pointless, historically arbitrary way to keep TALENT + MERIT as secondary qualifiers. “First impressions matter” my ass. Get Gen Xs out of hiring positions

Someone didn’t send a thank you email. 

I always love it when some idiot takes a single person’s actions and uses them to generalize about “white people” or “men” or whoever.
white people’s fixations on inconsequential social norms
Who wants to tell this guy about, say, Japanese tea ceremonies? In fact, this statement is not only racist against white people, it’s racist against non-whites too.
the jobs we [CENSORED] deserve
Isn’t that for the hiring manager to determine, not you? If you’re throwing this pseudoinellectual, racist, self-entitled tantrum over a single hiring manager requiring a minor courtesy, why would anyone want to hire you? Do you think most white applicants are automatically going know they should send a thank you letter?


“First impressions matter” my ass.


You…you do realize that concept isn’t remotely limited to Gen Xers, right?


How fucking low does the bar have to be that asking for a thank you is too fucking much?
Pathetic doesn’t even begin to cover it.


I thought it was common sense to say thank you for getting hired but it turns out I’ve been a superior, high class white male all along. I learn so much on Tumblr everyday. 


“nonwhites are idiotic caveman with zero basic social skills” sounds kind of racist to me.

thesunshineshow: kushonthecoast: siryouarebeingmocked: yourpoliticsarestupid: uncommonbish: THISTHISTHIS, and linguistic prescriptivis...

Confused, Head, and Jesus: Tyler Follow Really_Silent Kylie Jenner looks so much better without makeup to me idk why. Im prob just weird * Follow @hereforsmolder Nikki looks better without makeup, we can see her natural beauty. DI YCA FOX hre Jlive LAD DFOX WILDFOX YKE UP AYK RETWEET LIKES 4 dark skin king @sluttyblackboy Follow The fact that she probably isn't wearing any makeup and is still stunning.... Jesus Christ. This is a picture of Jenna Jameson before all the surgeries and without makeup. 11Wow. (SFW) G.imgur.com) submitted 3 years ago by owenstumor 1007 comments share pocket I was afraid you guys would t anything but, wears Stila Four Pan hinn was too is Bronze Set and Frieda Sheer Blonde Curvaceo HEAD OVER HEELS WITH Mick O'Hara 오. Follow Ken Doll GKenyeWest15 # . Follow mick_ohara aylor swift without makeup on #TaylorSwift Yo, Taylor Swift without makeup caught me by surprise. She's way prettier without it www.cambio.com Wonderland. Wonderlain Pinit TAYLOR 55 PM-21 Nov 2014 shattered-angel456: periegesisvoid: socialnetworkhell: buzzfeed: Here Are Some People Who Are Very Confused About What “No Makeup” Looks Like Woman: wearing foundation, powder, blush, bronzer, highlight, false lashes, mascara, nude lipstick, brow powder eyeshadow Man: she doesn’t have red lipstick on so that means no makeup like 3 of them are wearing very visible winged eyeliner i’m screaming Literally goes to show men don’t actually give a shit or even notice the make up, men aren’t the ones asking for women to wear all this make up, it’s women choosing it to compete with other women. If all women everywhere stopped wearing it, men wouldn’t even care and would accept it as the new standard. 
Confused, Head, and Jesus: Tyler
 Follow
 Really_Silent
 Kylie Jenner looks so much better without
 makeup to me idk why. Im prob just weird

 *
 Follow
 @hereforsmolder
 Nikki looks better without makeup, we can see
 her natural beauty.
 DI
 YCA
 FOX
 hre Jlive
 LAD
 DFOX
 WILDFOX
 YKE UP
 AYK
 RETWEET
 LIKES
 4

 dark skin king
 @sluttyblackboy
 Follow
 The fact that she probably isn't wearing any
 makeup and is still stunning.... Jesus Christ.

 This is a picture of Jenna Jameson before all the surgeries and without makeup.
 11Wow. (SFW) G.imgur.com)
 submitted 3 years ago by owenstumor
 1007 comments share pocket
 I was afraid you guys would t
 anything but, wears Stila Four Pan
 hinn was too
 is
 Bronze Set and
 Frieda Sheer Blonde
 Curvaceo

 HEAD OVER HEELS WITH
 Mick O'Hara
 오. Follow
 Ken Doll
 GKenyeWest15
 #
 . Follow
 mick_ohara
 aylor swift without makeup on
 #TaylorSwift
 Yo, Taylor Swift without makeup caught me by
 surprise. She's way prettier without it
 www.cambio.com
 Wonderland.
 Wonderlain
 Pinit
 TAYLOR
 55 PM-21 Nov 2014
shattered-angel456:

periegesisvoid:

socialnetworkhell:

buzzfeed:

Here Are Some People Who Are Very Confused About What “No Makeup” Looks Like

Woman: wearing foundation, powder, blush, bronzer, highlight, false lashes, mascara, nude lipstick, brow powder eyeshadow 
Man: she doesn’t have red lipstick on so that means no makeup

like 3 of them are wearing very visible winged eyeliner i’m screaming

Literally goes to show men don’t actually give a shit or even notice the make up, men aren’t the ones asking for women to wear all this make up, it’s women choosing it to compete with other women. If all women everywhere stopped wearing it, men wouldn’t even care and would accept it as the new standard. 

shattered-angel456: periegesisvoid: socialnetworkhell: buzzfeed: Here Are Some People Who Are Very Confused About What “No Makeup” Looks...