Of My
Of My

Of My

Are
Are

Are

Was
Was

Was

Googling
Googling

Googling

Actually
Actually

Actually

Searching
Searching

Searching

Opener
Opener

Opener

Other
Other

Other

Opening
Opening

Opening

Overation
Overation

Overation

🔥 | Latest

Searches: prismatic-bell: the-invisible-self: pulmonary-poultry: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: mandalorianreynolds: kuriquinn: prismatic-bell: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: prismatic-bell: broken-bits-of-dreams: prismatic-bell: aiko-mori-hates-pedos: artbymoga: Throwback to all these Jesus comics I drew in 2012… Good post OP Good post, OP, and if you ever decide to do another may I please suggest “NOT IN HEBREW IT DOESN’T” as a punchline? So much of the Old Testament is HORRIFICALLY translated from the Tanakh, it drives me batty. WAIT WAIT WHAT DOES IT SAY?????? I NEED TO LIKE,, DESTROY MI MUM FOR BEING REALLY HOMOPHOBIC Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing: 1) The word translated as “forbidden” is “toevah.” While that translation isn’t … wrong, it’s sort of like saying “McMansion” means “really big house.” There are a lot of connotations in that word. The specific issue with toevah is that we … sort of … don’t know anymore exactly what it meant. Based on context, it seems likely that the word referred to something ritually forbidden. This part of Torah was written not only as a guide for future generations, but also to say “so, look around, see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT.“ Thus, if we interpret “toevah” to mean something that’s forbidden to do as a ritual before G-d, then the verse says nothing whatsoever about Adam and Steve and their two kids and their dog–it’s saying you shouldn’t have sex with another man in the Temple as a sacrifice. 2) Following the same “this is ritually forbidden” logic of toevah, this verse may also be interpreted as “don’t do sex magic,” which was a thing in. Like. A lot of fucking cultures at the time. 3) Hebrew is a highly gendered language, and the grammatical gender in this verse is really really weird. One of the “men” in this verse is given female grammar. Why? Who fucking knows, man, this isn’t the only grammatical oddity in Torah. (There are also places where G-d is referred to as plural, and also as female.) One suggestion is that this is a way of creating a diminutive–that is, that the verse should be read as “a man should not lie with a boy.” Now, it’s worth noting that modern secular scholarship has concluded the written Torah was written down around the 6th century BCE, and most non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are like “yeah, all things considered, that sounds pretty legit.” Do you know what else was happening around the 6th century BCE? What laypeople tend to mean when they say “ancient Greece” was happening. Do you know what happened a lot in that time period in Greece? Dudes forming relationships with younger boys, like ages 10-15, and using them for sex in exchange for financial gifts, mentorship, etc. While we don’t know just how young some of these younger boys may have been, we do know some were prepubescent. In light of this, and also something I mentioned under the first point–”see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT,” if this verse is interpreted to say “a man should not lie with a boy,” then it’s pretty clearly “my dudes, my fellows, my lads, don’t be fucking pedophiles.” 4) Because of the grammar I mentioned in #3, it’s also possible that “should not lie with a man as with a woman” is actually referring to a place, not an abstract personhood: a man shouldn’t have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. In the time period, a woman’s bed was sort of like–that was her place, her safe sanctuary. It was also a ritually holy place where babies were made. By having sex in her bed, you’re violating her safe space (and also introducing a man who may not be a male relative, thus forcing her into breaking the laws of modesty). If this verse is read this way, then it should be taken to mean “don’t sexually violate a woman’s safety and modesty.”5) And as an offshoot of #4, this may be a second verse relating to infidelity. Which woman’s bed is any random dude in 600 BCE most likely to have access to? His wife’s. But laws were administered differently based on whether the person they pertained to was slave or free, male or female, and so on–thus, a man committing adultery with a woman would be treated differently than man committing adultery with a man (especially because the latter would carry no chance of an illegitimate pregnancy). So you’ll note, there are a lot of ways to read this verse, and only a one-to-one translation with no cultural awareness produces “being gay is wrong, all of the time”.(You’ll also notice the word “abomination” is nowhere to be found. That’s like … a straight-up fiction created for who only knows what reason.) Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @prismatic-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers: Much appreciated. I love when scholarship and history debunks bullshit …I sadly have more bullshit to report. “removed for violating guidelines”, EVERY screenshot. …goddamnit Let’s try this again I am horrified that @prismatic-bell keeps getting censored + this info is gold. Many thanks, @pulmonary-poultry. This isn’t the only Jewish post of mine that’s mysteriously stopped showing up in searches and/or vanished from my blog entirely, but it is the one I get the most requests to repost, so this saves me from having to rewrite the whole damned essay. @the-invisible-self, thanks for bringing it to my attention that someone was able to preserve the post!
Searches: prismatic-bell:
the-invisible-self:

pulmonary-poultry:

the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99:


mandalorianreynolds:

kuriquinn:

prismatic-bell:

the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99:


prismatic-bell:


broken-bits-of-dreams:

prismatic-bell:


aiko-mori-hates-pedos:

artbymoga:
Throwback to all these Jesus comics I drew in 2012…

Good post OP


Good post, OP, and if you ever decide to do another may I please suggest “NOT IN HEBREW IT DOESN’T” as a punchline? So much of the Old Testament is HORRIFICALLY translated from the Tanakh, it drives me batty.


WAIT WAIT WHAT DOES IT SAY?????? I NEED TO LIKE,, DESTROY MI MUM FOR BEING REALLY HOMOPHOBIC

Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing: 

1) The word translated as “forbidden” is “toevah.” While that translation isn’t … wrong, it’s sort of like saying “McMansion” means “really big house.” There are a lot of connotations in that word. The specific issue with toevah is that we … sort of … don’t know anymore exactly what it meant. Based on context, it seems likely that the word referred to something ritually forbidden. This part of Torah was written not only as a guide for future generations, but also to say “so, look around, see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT.“ Thus, if we interpret “toevah” to mean something that’s forbidden to do as a ritual before G-d, then the verse says nothing whatsoever about Adam and Steve and their two kids and their dog–it’s saying you shouldn’t have sex with another man in the Temple as a sacrifice.

2) Following the same “this is ritually forbidden” logic of toevah, this verse may also be interpreted as “don’t do sex magic,” which was a thing in. Like. A lot of fucking cultures at the time.

3) Hebrew is a highly gendered language, and the grammatical gender in this verse is really really weird. One of the “men” in this verse is given female grammar. Why? Who fucking knows, man, this isn’t the only grammatical oddity in Torah. (There are also places where G-d is referred to as plural, and also as female.) One suggestion is that this is a way of creating a diminutive–that is, that the verse should be read as “a man should not lie with a boy.” Now, it’s worth noting that modern secular scholarship has concluded the written Torah was written down around the 6th century BCE, and most non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are like “yeah, all things considered, that sounds pretty legit.” 

Do you know what else was happening around the 6th century BCE? What laypeople tend to mean when they say “ancient Greece” was happening. 

Do you know what happened a lot in that time period in Greece? Dudes forming relationships with younger boys, like ages 10-15, and using them for sex in exchange for financial gifts, mentorship, etc. While we don’t know just how young some of these younger boys may have been, we do know some were prepubescent. In light of this, and also something I mentioned under the first point–”see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT,” if this verse is interpreted to say “a man should not lie with a boy,” then it’s pretty clearly “my dudes, my fellows, my lads, don’t be fucking pedophiles.” 

4) Because of the grammar I mentioned in #3, it’s also possible that “should not lie with a man as with a woman” is actually referring to a place, not an abstract personhood: a man shouldn’t have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. In the time period, a woman’s bed was sort of like–that was her place, her safe sanctuary. It was also a ritually holy place where babies were made. By having sex in her bed, you’re violating her safe space (and also introducing a man who may not be a male relative, thus forcing her into breaking the laws of modesty). If this verse is read this way, then it should be taken to mean “don’t sexually violate a woman’s safety and modesty.”5) And as an offshoot of #4, this may be a second verse relating to infidelity. Which woman’s bed is any random dude in 600 BCE most likely to have access to? His wife’s. But laws were administered differently based on whether the person they pertained to was slave or free, male or female, and so on–thus, a man committing adultery with a woman would be treated differently than man committing adultery with a man (especially because the latter would carry no chance of an illegitimate pregnancy).


So you’ll note, there are a lot of ways to read this verse, and only a one-to-one translation with no cultural awareness produces “being gay is wrong, all of the time”.(You’ll also notice the word “abomination” is nowhere to be found. That’s like … a straight-up fiction created for who only knows what reason.)


Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @prismatic-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers:








Much appreciated.


I love when scholarship and history debunks bullshit



…I sadly have more bullshit to report.

“removed for violating guidelines”, EVERY screenshot.



…goddamnit







Let’s try this again



I am horrified that @prismatic-bell keeps getting censored + this info is gold. 

Many thanks, @pulmonary-poultry. This isn’t the only Jewish post of mine that’s mysteriously stopped showing up in searches and/or vanished from my blog entirely, but it is the one I get the most requests to repost, so this saves me from having to rewrite the whole damned essay. @the-invisible-self, thanks for bringing it to my attention that someone was able to preserve the post!

prismatic-bell: the-invisible-self: pulmonary-poultry: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: mandalorianreynolds: kuriquinn: prismatic-bell...

Searches: 67%- al AT&T LTE 10:40 AM Amelia YOU MATCHED WITH AMELIA ON 6/23/18 A lost duck is walking through the forest. Which way does he go? To the left The duck waddles along and ends up by a lake. Farther along the shore is a bridge he can cross to get to the other side. Should the duck swim across the lake or go towards the bridge? Bridge Also... why is there a Christmas tree outside With night approaching the duck crosses the bridge. Smart decision as alligators are seen hiding in the lake. The duck has a weird feeling there might have been treasure under the Christmas tree he passed. "Too late" he says to himself. On the other side the duck finds an abandoned mining town. However, power is still running. Should the duck investigate one of the houses or pass through the town towards the mountain? Omg this is a risky choice but the duck should investigate the house The duck is hesitant but decides to investigate the house. He finds that the front door is unlocked and slowly opens it, searching for any danger. He finds nothing of danger but keeps his guard up. In the entry way is an old Christmas tree, a desk with a phone and two doors. Where should he go? The Christmas tree The duck investigates under the Christmas tree and finds some old presents. With no one living in the town he decides to open them. He finds a hat making him feel way cooler, and some candy that he decides to eat. "Man I'm cool" says the duck. Should the duck leave or continue to investigate the house? Continue to investigate The duck looks into the two doors and finds the rooms are empty. "They must've left ina hurry" he says. The duck waddles to the desk and searches it finding nothing but a torn note. On it is written "Amelia's number" but the rest of the note is gone. The duck wonders if he should try a random phone number or leave the house and head towards the mountain. What should he do? Sunday 9:58 PM Try a random phone number Yesterday 4:31 PM The duck wonders what Amelia's phone number could be. What number should he try? Sent Today 10:06 AM Type a message Send GIF Apologies if it’s a repost. It made me laugh
Searches: 67%-
 al AT&T LTE
 10:40 AM
 Amelia
 YOU MATCHED WITH AMELIA ON 6/23/18
 A lost duck is walking through the
 forest. Which way does he go?
 To the left
 The duck waddles along and ends up
 by a lake. Farther along the shore is a
 bridge he can cross to get to the other
 side. Should the duck swim across the
 lake or go towards the bridge?
 Bridge
 Also... why is there a Christmas tree
 outside
 With night approaching the duck
 crosses the bridge. Smart decision as
 alligators are seen hiding in the lake.
 The duck has a weird feeling there
 might have been treasure under the
 Christmas tree he passed. "Too late"
 he says to himself. On the other side
 the duck finds an abandoned mining
 town. However, power is still running.
 Should the duck investigate one of the
 houses or pass through the town
 towards the mountain?
 Omg this is a risky choice but the duck
 should investigate the house
 The duck is hesitant but decides to
 investigate the house. He finds that
 the front door is unlocked and slowly
 opens it, searching for any danger. He
 finds nothing of danger but keeps his
 guard up. In the entry way is an old
 Christmas tree, a desk with a phone
 and two doors. Where should he go?
 The Christmas tree
 The duck investigates under the
 Christmas tree and finds some old
 presents. With no one living in the
 town he decides to open them. He
 finds a hat making him feel way
 cooler, and some candy that he
 decides to eat. "Man I'm cool" says
 the duck. Should the duck leave or
 continue to investigate the house?
 Continue to investigate
 The duck looks into the two doors and
 finds the rooms are empty. "They
 must've left ina hurry" he says. The
 duck waddles to the desk and
 searches it finding nothing but a torn
 note. On it is written "Amelia's
 number" but the rest of the note is
 gone. The duck wonders if he should
 try a random phone number or leave
 the house and head towards the
 mountain. What should he do?
 Sunday 9:58 PM
 Try a random phone number
 Yesterday 4:31 PM
 The duck wonders what Amelia's
 phone number could be. What number
 should he try?
 Sent
 Today 10:06 AM
 Type a message
 Send
 GIF
Apologies if it’s a repost. It made me laugh

Apologies if it’s a repost. It made me laugh

Searches: DAPASTOR YOO uncleromeo: feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes: emotionsclashagainstemotions: thatpettyblackgirl: Because we know they value the lives of dogs over blac… nevermind 😒 the ironic part is, racism is probably why the cop was so convinced the drugs were there. the dog was doing its job, which is not reacting to drugs that don’t exist. the cop, on other hand, saw a black man, and was sure he had drugs. Drug dogs have also been found to be ineffective in many cases, basing their reactions on the cop’s body language. “For the purpose of this post, though, I want to focus on what’s missing from Colb’s analysis and, should the Supreme Court decide to hear the case, will almost certainly also be missing from oral arguments, the court’s ruling and most discussion of the case: that narcotics-detecting dogs and their handlers aren’t very good at discerning the presence of illegal drugs. Multiple analyses of drug-dog alerts have consistently shown alarmingly high error rates — with some close to and exceeding 50 percent. In effect, some of these K-9 units are worse than a coin flip. For some units, the reason may be sinister — the police handler may have trained the dog to alert on command. I’ve asked dog trainers to look at videos of roadside searches in the past, and, on more than one occasion, they said they saw clear indications that a dog was being cued to alert. But it needn’t be so malicious. While dogs are indeed capable of sniffing out illicit drugs, we’ve bred into them another overriding trait: the desire to please. Even drug dogs with conscientious handlers will read their handlers’ unintentional body language and alert accordingly. A 2010 study found that packages designed to trick handlers into thinking there were drugs inside them were much more likely to trigger false alerts than packages designed to trick the dogs. (Police-dog handlers and trainers responded to that study by refusing to cooperate with further research.) Many drug dogs, then, are not alerting to the presence of drugs, but to their handlers’ suspicions about the presence of drugs. And searches based on little more than law enforcement’s suspicions are exactly what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to prevent. (Tracking dogs that pick suspects out of “scent lineups” have had similar problems, and have led to numerous wrongful convictions.)” ^^^!!!
Searches: DAPASTOR YOO
uncleromeo:

feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes:


emotionsclashagainstemotions:


thatpettyblackgirl:

Because we know they value the lives of dogs over blac… nevermind 😒

the ironic part is, racism is probably why the cop was so convinced the drugs were there. the dog was doing its job, which is not reacting to drugs that don’t exist. the cop, on other hand, saw a black man, and was sure he had drugs.


Drug dogs have also been found to be ineffective in many cases, basing their reactions on the cop’s body language.
“For the purpose of this post, though, I want to focus on what’s missing from Colb’s analysis and, should the Supreme Court decide to hear the case, will almost certainly also be missing from oral arguments, the court’s ruling and most discussion of the case: that narcotics-detecting dogs and their handlers aren’t very good at discerning the presence of illegal drugs. Multiple analyses of drug-dog alerts have consistently shown alarmingly high error rates — with some close to and exceeding 50 percent. In effect, some of these K-9 units are worse than a coin flip.
For some units, the reason may be sinister — the police handler may have trained the dog to alert on command. I’ve asked dog trainers to look at videos of roadside searches in the past, and, on more than one occasion, they said they saw clear indications that a dog was being cued to alert.
But it needn’t be so malicious. While dogs are indeed capable of sniffing out illicit drugs, we’ve bred into them another overriding trait: the desire to please. Even drug dogs with conscientious handlers will read their handlers’ unintentional body language and alert accordingly. A 2010 study found that packages designed to trick handlers into thinking there were drugs inside them were much more likely to trigger false alerts than packages designed to trick the dogs. (Police-dog handlers and trainers responded to that study by refusing to cooperate with further research.) Many drug dogs, then, are not alerting to the presence of drugs, but to their handlers’ suspicions about the presence of drugs. And searches based on little more than law enforcement’s suspicions are exactly what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to prevent. (Tracking dogs that pick suspects out of “scent lineups” have had similar problems, and have led to numerous wrongful convictions.)”


^^^!!!

uncleromeo: feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes: emotionsclashagainstemotions: thatpettyblackgirl: Because we know they value the live...

Searches: the "police officers risk their lives to protect us" starter pack Savannah Danielle lol who knew there was something wrong with actually having a car, a nice house and a clean put together family who lives in a safe community while spending your hard earned money on paying your bills rather then expensive sneakers and supporting the authorities of the neighborhood you take pride in Like Reply 11 minutes ago living-for-fiction: unbossed: theflowerfish: saaavx0h: jaime-foxxx: OKAY BUT SOME OFFICERS ACTUALLY DO RISK THEIR FUCKING LIVES. It’s cute how tumblr users are liike “ahhh not all _____ people” but when it’s cops, they’re all awful apparently. Good god.  yes they do and it’s a shame some people don’t recognize or appreciate that! Cops who don’t check and report explicitly bad cops are not good cops. The culture of the blue wall of silence logically makes it so that cops are inherently bad, not good. The good cops who do report their constituents get labeled as rats and get harassed by other cops for snitching or even lose their jobs. The police are nothing more than a glorified gang. Come live in the communities that the police continuously harass, brutalize, and murder then let me know how you feel. Come hang in Philly for a minute, get a taste of how it feels to have the cops hold a magnifying glass over you. Ask my friend who got shot while delivering pizza in Southwest Philly by plainclothes officers who never identified themselves how it felt to have a bullet removed from his face. Or head to Camden where the cops don’t even respond to calls in these communities, and if they do they just show up to beat and arrest the people there. Go to Washington Heights in NYC where they stop and frisk mostly black and Latino men, even though almost 90% of those searches end up with nothing (stats available on NYPD website). Imagine a world where you get stopped and harassed by the police because of where you live or how you look, regardless of whether you’re innocent or not. Then tell me how much you just loooooove the police. Y'all don’t see shit over that white picket fence of yours, do you? The “good cop” going by the book will use violence to evict a homeless family from their car if they’re parked illegally. The “good cop” going by the book will use violence to arrest them, tearing the children from their parents, if they try to sleep in a foreclosed home left empty by the bank as a tax write-off. The “good cop” going by the book will use violence to keep that family from eating food that grocery stores and restaurants throw away in their locked dumpsters. The “good cop” going by the book will use violence to enforce even the most unjust law. And badge lickers will always try to justify the injustice. For the people who missed the point, this post doesn’t say that cops never risk their lives - it’s inviting you to take a good long look at the characteristics of the people they DO protect and risk their lives for, and note that there is a huge disparity in how cops treat people based on race, socioeconomic status, etc. Also I love it when people use “coppin’ is DANGEROUS” to handwave the numerous civil rights violations cops are routinely guilty of in the process of “just following orders”. Plenty of jobs are dangerous. Plenty of jobs are more dangerous than being a cop. But cops seem to be the main ones stomping around demanding endless respect and unquestioning obedience just because their “job is dangerous”.
Searches: the "police officers risk their lives to
 protect us" starter pack

 Savannah Danielle lol who knew there was something wrong with actually
 having a car, a nice house and a clean put together family who lives in a
 safe community while spending your hard earned money on paying your
 bills rather then expensive sneakers and supporting the authorities of the
 neighborhood you take pride in
 Like Reply 11 minutes ago
living-for-fiction:
unbossed:


theflowerfish:

saaavx0h:

jaime-foxxx:

OKAY BUT SOME OFFICERS ACTUALLY DO RISK THEIR FUCKING LIVES.
It’s cute how tumblr users are liike “ahhh not all _____ people” but when it’s cops, they’re all awful apparently. Good god. 

yes they do and it’s a shame some people don’t recognize or appreciate that!

Cops who don’t check and report explicitly bad cops are not good cops. The culture of the blue wall of silence logically makes it so that cops are inherently bad, not good. The good cops who do report their constituents get labeled as rats and get harassed by other cops for snitching or even lose their jobs. The police are nothing more than a glorified gang.
Come live in the communities that the police continuously harass, brutalize, and murder then let me know how you feel. 
Come hang in Philly for a minute, get a taste of how it feels to have the cops hold a magnifying glass over you. Ask my friend who got shot while delivering pizza in Southwest Philly by plainclothes officers who never identified themselves how it felt to have a bullet removed from his face.
Or head to Camden where the cops don’t even respond to calls in these communities, and if they do they just show up to beat and arrest the people there.
Go to Washington Heights in NYC where they stop and frisk mostly black and Latino men, even though almost 90% of those searches end up with nothing (stats available on NYPD website). Imagine a world where you get stopped and harassed by the police because of where you live or how you look, regardless of whether you’re innocent or not. Then tell me how much you just loooooove the police.
Y'all don’t see shit over that white picket fence of yours, do you?


The “good cop” going by the book will use violence to evict a homeless family from their car if they’re parked illegally. The “good cop” going by the book will use violence to arrest them, tearing the children from their parents, if they try to sleep in a foreclosed home left empty by the bank as a tax write-off. The “good cop” going by the book will use violence to keep that family from eating food that grocery stores and restaurants throw away in their locked dumpsters.
The “good cop” going by the book will use violence to enforce even the most unjust law. And badge lickers will always try to justify the injustice.


For the people who missed the point, this post doesn’t say that cops never risk their lives - it’s inviting you to take a good long look at the characteristics of the people they DO protect and risk their lives for, and note that there is a huge disparity in how cops treat people based on race, socioeconomic status, etc.
Also I love it when people use “coppin’ is DANGEROUS” to handwave the numerous civil rights violations cops are routinely guilty of in the process of “just following orders”. Plenty of jobs are dangerous. Plenty of jobs are more dangerous than being a cop. But cops seem to be the main ones stomping around demanding endless respect and unquestioning obedience just because their “job is dangerous”.

living-for-fiction: unbossed: theflowerfish: saaavx0h: jaime-foxxx: OKAY BUT SOME OFFICERS ACTUALLY DO RISK THEIR FUCKING LIVES. It’...

Searches: PLOT @BingPlot Follow #BelieveBlackGirlsBCSD FOUR 12-YEAR-OLD BLACK STUDENTS STRIP-SEARCHED BY BINGHAMTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT FACULTY: EAST MIDDLE SCHOOL, JANUARY 15TH, 2019 STUDENT A: Made to remove shirt pants, and 2nd layer of leogings. Searched in bra and underwear. STUDENT B: Made to remove shirt and outer pants. Searched in legoins and bra. STUDENT C: STUDENT D: Searched In clothing. Recelved In-School Suspension for refusing to remove shirt and pants. Made to remove shirt. Searched in bra and pants. "A student may, under current law and policy, be searched in a school building by an administrator [...]. Thése searches involve an administrator requesting a Student to empty their pockets, remove their shoes and/or remove their jackets." - Statement from BCSD, 1/23/19 11:57 AM - 24 Jan 2019 15,815 Retweets 25,336 Likes jaVe. @javeauriel Follow Student D received in-school suspension for not agreeing to remove her shirt and pants. Now think about what that teaches girls about saying "no". PLO @BingPlot #BelieveBlackGirlsBCSD Show this thread 8:36 AM-26 Jan 2019 diekingdomcome: witches-ofcolor: littlelamblillianna: gahdamnpunk: This is truly horrifying These poor girls. If I EVER find out they try to do this to my baby girl there will be HELL to pay. 12 year old girls???? Wtf???? This is disgusting What the actual fuck. Ain’t no damn school policy requires kids of any sex or age to remove pieces of their clothing, shoes and jackets I understand but pieces of actual clothing nah I refuse to believe they made that a policy. Everyone involved needs jail time and needs to be removed from children even their own. Would’ve had to call the police on them right there
Searches: PLOT
 @BingPlot
 Follow
 #BelieveBlackGirlsBCSD
 FOUR 12-YEAR-OLD BLACK STUDENTS STRIP-SEARCHED
 BY BINGHAMTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT FACULTY:
 EAST MIDDLE SCHOOL, JANUARY 15TH, 2019
 STUDENT A:
 Made to remove shirt
 pants, and 2nd layer
 of leogings. Searched
 in bra and underwear.
 STUDENT B:
 Made to remove shirt and
 outer pants. Searched
 in legoins and bra.
 STUDENT C:
 STUDENT D:
 Searched In clothing.
 Recelved In-School
 Suspension for
 refusing to remove
 shirt and pants.
 Made to remove shirt.
 Searched in bra and
 pants.
 "A student may, under current law and policy, be searched in a
 school building by an administrator [...]. Thése searches
 involve an administrator requesting a Student to empty their
 pockets, remove their shoes and/or remove their jackets."
 - Statement from BCSD, 1/23/19
 11:57 AM - 24 Jan 2019
 15,815 Retweets 25,336 Likes

 jaVe.
 @javeauriel
 Follow
 Student D received in-school suspension for
 not agreeing to remove her shirt and pants.
 Now think about what that teaches girls
 about saying "no".
 PLO @BingPlot
 #BelieveBlackGirlsBCSD
 Show this thread
 8:36 AM-26 Jan 2019
diekingdomcome:
witches-ofcolor:

littlelamblillianna:


gahdamnpunk:
This is truly horrifying

These poor girls. If I EVER find out they try to do this to my baby girl there will be HELL to pay.


12 year old girls???? Wtf???? This is disgusting 


What the actual fuck. Ain’t no damn school policy requires kids of any sex or age to remove pieces of their clothing, shoes and jackets I understand but pieces of actual clothing nah I refuse to believe they made that a policy. Everyone involved needs jail time and needs to be removed from children even their own. Would’ve had to call the police on them right there

diekingdomcome: witches-ofcolor: littlelamblillianna: gahdamnpunk: This is truly horrifying These poor girls. If I EVER find out they...