I also want to make it abundantly clear this is why people say “fuck cops” and why “Blue Lives Matter” is bullshit. It may only be a “handful” of corrupt cops (which is also bullshit) but it’s the entire institution behind them that enables them and refuses to take any form of accountability. Every single cop is complicit. Every single one.
“We have no idea why the US didn’t follow the typical pattern of development set by other affluent societies in the 20th century, eschewing both a labor party and a welfare state. Social democracy never happened in the US and we have no clear reason why.”
Race. At every turn, anti-black racism was used to mobilize poor whites to fight against their class interests bc we were more concerned with subjugating our black population. Welfare was squeezed into nonexistence in the 80s and 90s with wide public support bc of propaganda about “welfare queens,” bc the idea of black women, mothers, getting “money for nothing” was enough to cause a public outcry for the gutting of welfare. Earlier, in the 40s and 50s, socialized medicine was killed before it could even get started because white voters could not accept paying taxes for a program that would benefit black americans, even if they stood to benefit as well. Seriously, the whole history of the american lower classes is poor whites gleefully accepting destitution and exploitation because it meant that black americans would suffer too.
Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”
Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
2) “Do you have something to hide?”
Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”
The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”
(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”
Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
5.) We have someone who will testify against you
Police “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.
6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”
Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.
7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”
Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).
Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.
Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.
One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else
Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.
Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
no cop is your friend in any situation
i just think it’s extremely telling how often, even now, the danger of hiv is so often cast as danger posed by people with hiv to others rather than the danger posed by hiv itself to people with hiv.
it’s paradoxical because once you take the health effects of hiv out of the equation, what is the basis of your concern for those at-risk others? caring about the danger of hiv to their health would mean caring about the health of people living with hiv now.
it seems to me that the real fear is that of “innocents” being “tainted”; being turned into “monsters” who could in turn create more monsters. you can see why the zombie/werewolf metaphor is so compatible with this view, and why it is so profoundly contrary to the health and well being of all people with hiv and all people at risk for hiv.
we have the technology to turn salt water into potable water and we don’t use it
we have the technology to have unlimited solar energy and we don’t use it
we have the technology to turn the Sahara desert into farm land and we don’t use it
capitalism get on my damn nerves
people always talk about how capitalism is so innovative, but conveniently leaves out that the innovation is only for the sake of profit
they never mention that when the prosperity of the entire population isn’t profitable, everyone but the ruling class is left to die
We don’t have the technology to turn the sahara into farmland, and even if we did, we shouldn’t do it. Deserts are critical habitats, not vast empty waistlands.
Turning them into farmland would wipe out countless species. There’s also a reason little grows there. What we can do, is place solar farms out in deserts. A small fraction of the sahara could power the world. That is within our technological ability. This is where captialism strangles us.
Our food production is just fine. We produce too much. Our distribution system however, is not. It focuses on where the most money can be gained, to hell with everyone else. This is where capitalism strangles us.
We also don’t need to turn salt water into fresh water. We need to manage our fresh water better. Use that tech to clean it, and stop poluting it in the first place with fracking and dumping sewage and replacing lead pipes. And to stop letting one or two conglomarates monopolize them. This is where capitalists strangle us.
The problem is not a lack of resources. We have plenty. The problem is captitalism mismanaging and ruining the plentiful resources we have. By opening up new resources such as “turning the sahara into farmland” or turning salt water into fresh water, we are just giving capitalists more resources to destroy and throttle. And destroying more critical environments. We’re not actually fixing the problems.
I think it’s deeply, deeply sad when I watch a video on YouTube and a woman says, “I’m having a no makeup day/it’s important to have no makeup days/I didn’t feel like doing anything today…. So I just put concealer under my eyes and on my zits and evened my complexion and did my brows and a little bit of mascara”.
Like their idea of not wearing makeup is… wearing makeup. It’s disturbing. I wish these women weren’t taught that the “default” of womanhood is still covering your imperfections
or maybe… they just enjoy wearing makeup? they feel better with it on? why do we assume women who enjoy wearing makeup or prefer to always have some on “hate themselves” or “don’t value” themselves. let women wear makeup who want to and let women who don’t want to have a bare face in peace. jesus fucking christ.
without fail - WITHOUT FUCKING FAIL - whenever theres a post like this, theres people like you in the comments, and i have to say, im fucking sick of it. i dont know if it stems from some sort of defensive instinct, some feeling of being attacked because you wear makeup and this post criticizes (an aspect of) makeup, but either way, you show up in the comments like reading comprehension lacking little roaches.
this post DOES NOT SAY women who like makeup should feel guilty.
it DOES NOT SAY every woman who wears makeup hates themself.
IT SAYS THAT WEARING MAKEUP - SOMETHING THAT TAKES UP MONEY, TIME AND EFFORT - SHOULD NOT BE THE NORM FOR WOMEN, TO THE DEGREE THAT ‘NO MAKEUP’ IS DEFINED AS CONCEALER, BROWS, MASCARA AND BB CREAM
THERE ARE WOMEN OUT THERE WHO ARE SCARED TO BE SEEN WITHOUT MAKEUP BY THEIR PARTNERS, WHO SLEEP WITH MAKEUP ON BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID THEIR SIGNIFCANT OTHER WILL NOT FIND THEM BEAUTIFUL WITHOUT MAKEUP
YOU CANNOT TELL ME THESE WOMEN ‘ENJOY MAKEUP’ IN THE WAY SOMEONE WOULD ENJOY KNITTING, THERE ARE MANY LAYERS TO THIS, AND SOCIETAL PRESSURE, REWARD AND EXPECTATIONS *ARE* RELEVANT. YOU CANNOT SAY OTHERWISE WITHOUT LYING TO YOURSELF.
Going without makeup shouldn’t be brave, it shouldn’t be an emotional challenge. But it is for a lot of people.
I have seen girls doing no makeup challenges who fucking… Got upset and cried. Just having their bare, natural faces without products on it has become so expected of them that is induces distress and anxiety to be without it. They feel judged.
That’s fucked up.
Makeup as an item, as a thing… It is nether good, nor bad, it is just a tool. But a culture of makeup is manipulative and warping the way a lot of women view themselves and how they view other women.
That is not empowerment, it’s not “choice feminism”… It’s a culture designed to exploit women emotionally and financially until they feel socially inept when not wearing makeup.
“Makeup as an item, as a thing… It is nether good, nor bad, it is just a tool. But a culture of makeup is manipulative and warping the way a lot of women view themselves and how they view other women.That is not empowerment, it’s not “choice feminism”… It’s a culture designed to exploit women emotionally and financially until they feel socially inept when notwearing makeup.“
When young girls see women on commercials who “wash their face” and still have makeup on
afterwards? That messes with them. It makes them feel defective and inadequate,because they think that that perfect face on the screen is the norm, the standard.
I don’t think I have ever seen a female at any place of employment without some makeup
on,because having no makeup is seen as unprofessional.
Makeup culture is toxic.
Uh, the article says the riot vehicle this is replacing was deployed about 500 times in the last year. What the hell is going on in Calgary where a heavily armoured military vehicle is needed ~1.46 times per day???
I sure wouldn’t want to pay that fuel bill. Oh wait…
You know what’s happening here? Environmentalists and our local anti-racist-action groups are mobilizing. That’s why they’re pulling this fucking thing out. I wish I was joking.
The old riot vehicle was a monolith. The police here are incrasingly relying on police-state intimidation tactics (things like changing the cop vehicles from white to black [this has psychological data around it], giant vehicles like hummers, massive trucks, etc, as STANDARD POLICE VEHICLES, veiled threats to citizens, etc). This is no shock.
“Free college for everyone” seems kind of like a way to ask for a federal guarantee of full employment without actually asking for a federal guarantee of full employment, but in a way that (1) will not actually achieve full employment, and (2) might actually make things worse by accelerating the existing problem with credential inflation.
Like, student debt’s an issue, and I’m not in favor of college costing tens of thousands a year - I’m not in favor of anything costing money at all - but part of the underlying reason that student debt is such a big problem is because college is no longer a reliable route to a well-paying job. You borrow all that money thinking “well I can just pay this back when I land a decent middle-class job with benefits and a pension” and then you graduate four years later and find out oops, your bachelor’s degree means jack shit and you’re working in the gig economy for below minimum wage. Shit, you go to college for 8 or 10 years and graduate with a PhD and the same exact thing happens because welcome to adjuncthood. Free college ain’t gonna save you, man.
TIL that in September of 2016, 180 million workers in India staged a strike. It was the largest strike in world history, and went virtually uncovered by mainstream news, as they were instead reporting on the iPhone 7 release.
See THIS is what “You are not immune to propaganda” should mean. Not because you found a corporate Twitter joke funny, but because the news intentionally manipulated information to shift your focus of what’s going on in the world.
girl it can also be both….?
and how do you…..think they shift…..your attention away from things like this………………humanising corporations is directly in line with manipulating how they feed you information and shift ur opinions on them
Things you apparently don’t consider terrible:
Posting a video of a mother talking about how she wanted to kill her child while that same child was in the room listening.
Supporting the eugenic abortion of autistic people.
Failing to condemn the murders of autistic children.
Supporting the Judge Rotenburg Center, which according the the UN, tortures autistic people.
It is terrible, only 3% of their budget goes towards services, there are no autistic people on their board, they literally support eugenics. They are doing absolutely nothing good.
This is widely know withing the autistic community and they are pretty universally hated by autistic people. Because they are terrible. They only even bother pretending to care about little white boys.
Read that link. Read it.
And here is the resignation letter of the sole autistic person they had in an important (but still non board) position
Here’s a flyer by a major autism advocacy organisation on them
OR, if you still don’t give a fuck about what autistic people think or want, (which seems kind of obvious from the content of this ask) here are some links written by non autistic people.
Here’s a post from the CEO of one of the oldest charities in the US for intellectually and developmentally disabled people.
Here’s a post from a major autism parenting magazine
And here are some other posts
If you continue to support them now you are in possession of this information, then it is clear that you are not an ally to autistic people, you don’t want to help us, and are probably just doing your charity work for “oh look at me, I’m a good person” points.
If you support autism speaks, you are not supporting autistic people, you are hurting us. And you are doing it knowingly and consciously.
Please spread this, not enough people know.
The concept of “loitering” is violent and evil
The privatization of nature itself, of the outdoors… It’s violent to insist we can only legally be in a place if we (1) bought it, (2) payed our way to be there via goods. It’s violent to remove a human’s place outside and insist they have no community with the spaces that make up our world. Imperialism and capitalism have ruined ruined ruined our harmonies with nature and with our communities
Are you saying private property is a violent concept…? Bruh what?
hanging out with a group of women where you’re the only lesbian can feel so alienating at times, even if they’re not rude or trying to make you feel left out, there’s just something that doesn’t seem to connect, a bit what they consider to be the experience of being a woman that i just don’t get
in those conversation i am obviously not a man, but i am also not fully a woman
Too many Black activists are taken all the time.
Deandre Joshua’s body was found inside a burned car blocks from the protest. The 20-year-old was shot in the head before the car was torched.
Darren Seals, shown on video comforting Brown’s mother that same night, met an almost identical fate two years later. The 29-year-old’s bullet-riddled body was found inside a burning car in September 2016.
Four others also died, three of them ruled suicides.
— MarShawn McCarrel of Columbus, Ohio, shot himself in February 2016 outside the front door of the Ohio Statehouse, police said. He had been active in Ferguson.
— Edward Crawford Jr., 27, fatally shot himself in May 2017 after telling acquaintances he had been distraught over personal issues, police said. A photo of Crawford firing a tear gas canister back at police during a Ferguson protest was part of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage.
— In October, 24-year-old Danye Jones was found hanging from a tree in the yard of his north St. Louis County home. His mother, Melissa McKinnies, was active in Ferguson and posted on Facebook after her son’s death, “They lynched my baby.” But the death was ruled a suicide.
— Bassem Masri, a 31-year-old Palestinian American who frequently livestreamed video of Ferguson demonstrations, was found unresponsive on a bus in November and couldn’t be revived. Toxicology results released in February showed he died of an overdose of fentanyl.
Black activists need to be armed all the time. Clearly there’s some crazy agenda going on.