Bum-out baggy jeans fashion? WTF

People don’t realise that there are actually reasonable reasons behind the annoying practice of people wearing low-sagging jeans (with their asses exposed) that you're so tired of seeing on the streets with all these young people trying to act all bad and cool like G's n' all dat.

The usual reasons given for this are either the well-shared action of gay men in prison selling their asses and advertising the fact by having their panties showing, that it's "cool and popular" or that “it’s what the gangsters do”... I'm not sure who was the first person to wear that style with high publicity, but there were many rocking it for way less fashionable reasons...

Many people are too poor too own new trousers...

"If I’m not mistaken it started with the poor youths” the ones who owned and wore the same clothes for years after they grew out of them and had to wear ‘hand-me-downs’ that looked too short when pulled up above the waist. 

I remember “jack-ups” – old trousers that had legs ending above the ankles. The only alternative to embarrassment was to pull them down to make them reach the top of worn shoes and look close to normal... the short trousers then looked long enough but the backside was uncovered…That coulda been where it started..

Another possible reason for this is... body shape differences - before science and Kalergy concept made pecker sizes grow.

"Guess the caption"

“If I’m not mistaken this started from the “black” people before the 90’s”

Negro people typically have posteriors that have superior protrusion and genital packages that are relatively big. Try and pull old fashioned 90’s standard boot cut jeans up above the waist on a “black” man - it will not be very comfortable for him, they were not made to ‘his’ specification, because not enough space is there.. so more had to be made by pulling the trousers down.

"I don't like getting a hard-on from walking.."

Also, a protruding bottom on a clothed man was and is seen as undesirable to some (and the self-concious) so pulling trousers down could have been used as a way to hide ones asssesese.

As a pair of jeans ride low with the waistband up against the hips, instead of resting on top of them, left to hold on against gravity and movement, they gradually end up below the buttock, exposing the cheek. 

It’s unavoidable, a belt won’t help when trousers are (un)secured around something soft instead of hanging on hips. Obviously, really defiant street fashionistas will stupidly pull their trousers down to just above the knees due to trying to be extra special and different.. for many, I can imagine it is actually comfortable… or comforting.

I feel uncomfortable talking about this any more… There are many reasons for people wearing this style. 

To summarise, the overly saggy pant trend could have begun with a need for comfort or economic stability, not simply pure stupidity... However, now it is simply unnecessary and somewhat idiotic.

Also people have been wearing baggy clothing for millennia so stop hating...


Check these out!
A PERFECT LAW SYSTEM

EASTERN EUROPEANS

GAY DOUBLE STANDARD

Without 'White' People We Wouldnt Have These Things (Syc)

These are most/all of the things that moronic racists, even unknowing ones (most people), believe that we would all be without if ‘white’ people didn’t exist.

                                    Agree Y/N

Chemistry                                                       Advanced Math / Physics + Algorithms

Civilisation                                                     Photography

Processed Food                                               Peace

Toilet paper                                                     Psychology

Electromagnetism                                           International Events

Technology + Nano iterations (Fridges, Planes, Microwaves, Washing Machines, Internet. Etc.)

Democracy                                                      Space (in general) ;)

The more reasonable deduction is that all of these areas of understanding and other things above are inevitable developments. Their experimental discovery and progressive utilisation is a result of an industrial-academic culture being undisturbed and henceforth allowed to evolve. This academic / intellectual culture is one that can be employed to great benefit all over the world, that’s why it seems like such a gift.

The fact that ‘whites’ were the ‘leading’ bearers of technological development between the 15^th and 20^th centuries does not mean that they were the only ones who would have been able to do what was done. Besides, they weren’t. People of all nationalities contributed to the impressive technological and scientific developments of the past few centuries. Honestly, the highly applauded work of the great mathematicians, such as Euler, Euclid, Gauss, Archimedes, Fermat and Newton, could have been (and was) done by anyone with enough interest, resources, focus and self-belief. Ramanujan (1887) is surely proof enough.

Involved in this equation of person-based development were (and are) things other than a fantastical superiority gene in ‘whites’... too many to mention here. Any ‘people type’ that was able to industrialise their society, those without wars and without carelessness for academia, were working on advanced scientific conjecturing of some sort. This is proven by artifacts of many eras.

The argument can be made that ‘whites’ were the catalyst for increased development, but it would have to account for cultural, political and ecological differences which would self-defeat the ulterior argument of intrinsic superiority. 

Another argument seems more revealing; The development of anything logical is incremental and exponential until completion so - at later points in time, the rate of growth grows to dwarf previous rates, there is no way to argue against the citing that ‘whites’ came 'on top' at a good time in the road of human understanding. 

Documented discoveries, in an old-historical context, should not be relied on to determine the true time of discovery, just the documented time. Of course, our records are better today. Yet, there were many times before, which we know nothing of. So, how can we judge.

I’ll end there… Get on top of things. Understand what is untold. Like they did...

Complaining Is Good Flowchart

Why could complaining be always good? Why is complaining not always bad?

More Proof That UK's Government Doesn't Care

People looking for housing assistance get given cardboard folders packed with sheets of information intended as guidance.

Still giving out information packs that state on every page: ‘Updated 2012’ at the end of 2014 to members of the public inquiring about housing, the numerous changes and cuts to the housing, benefits and assistance systems that are now in effect aren't even accounted for.

The government expects people to stumble upon these new roadblocks as they go, on the outdated promises of certain funding and services that were actually made completely unavailable last year.

The government doesn't care enough to update the information they give to people in need.

Not telling them that things are actually slightly different and much harder than they were, even if you are a mother with a child, the UK government changes things but doesn't change their documentation of it for more than 2 YEARS.

However, London exists in a fundamentally different state to the rest of England so... I DUNNO.

Things That Make Employment An Impossibility

HR teams hold no responsibility.

The organisational bodies that provide the populace with employment opportunities seem to function in the most questionable ways possible. However, though their idiocy is apparent to most, these people don't care about the responsibility that comes with their positions of power.

Societies need employers as much as they need food.
ZERO-HOUR CONTRACTS

What is the reasoning behind the high number of false advertisements on jobsites?

The length of applications is a barrier to people who have lives and cannot afford to waste hours every day on absolutely nothing. Some applications take people 10 hours to complete. You may say that applicants should only apply for jobs that they have a chance at getting, but anyone should have a chance at getting an un/low skilled role.

So, out of desperation, everyone is forced into applying for the roles that 'anyone' can do, meaning the numbers of applicants, and therefore rejections, will be high. Shouldn't the applicant number for unskilled roles, and others that get hundreds and thousands of applicants, be legislatively capped? If only to stop so many people wasting so much precious time.

Illogical interview processes.

As well as: Why allow 2000 applicants then interview 50 people for a single job? That's a lot of wasted time and energy (translation: money)..

Nobody is reading 2000 applications? Is a robot reader, looking for keywords in 2000 applications, a better decision maker than a qualified human searching through the first twenty for a suitable candidate?

Why waste yours and so many people's time?

Why have one team of interviewers interviewing before another (then maybe another), isn't one team enough? Who's actually making THE decision? Is the first team not trustworthy? Or is it the last one?

Making the job givers unreachable.

Why are applicants unable to get a contact number for the person who is hiring? Why are we expected to be content with them hiding themselves away behind receptionists and the internet... Why do they see speaking to people as the worst thing ever?

Disproportionate hiring allowed to damage communities and business.

I understand your concept of 'cultural fit', but isn't that just a disagreeable method of discrimination against individuals who are unique?  It is essentially the practice of not hiring people who aren't like the people who are already employed.

Why are there factories with 90% Asian staffing?

Why are there offices in which 90% of the staffing is female? Every female construction worker is employed.

It should not be acceptable, in a civilised society, to have organisations comprised of groups of individuals that do not mirror, in some way, the groups that they serve. People are different. Sorry. It is not fair for a paper that has 20% Mexican readers and 100 staff to not have a single Mexican writer. There should be 20.

White's in America and the UK make up no more than 60% of the population. Outside of workplaces.

Ignoring issues.

Of what logic is a student loan system that knows that most of its graduates probably won't begin repayments?

We know that the longer someone is unemployed the harder they will find regaining employment.

Isn't that completely moronic? Should we not have a compassionate priority for applicants who have been without opportunities for long amounts of time? Not a vicious-circle devaluation of them? To run a system that isn't idiotic?

Three months of bad luck turns into 12. A year of unemployment results in unemployability (not even a word according to Google) that conceptually leads to AN INFINITE LENGTH OF UNEMPLOYMENT. nice...

Yes... people find their way, to phoenix flights, defeatist satisfaction or end-of-the-road ruin, but only after relying on taxpayers money, paying none themselves and committing crimes. What serious problems to further?!

Is it fair for many companies to only allow allocation of 12+ HOUR SHIFTS!! to human beings wanting sustenance funds for staying alive and healthy and then pay them the lowest possible wages?

Will we ever do any better?

A lack of clarity about our situation.

If there's a number of people who are unemployed or underemployed..

And there is a specific number of open positions..

Can we know those numbers? If not, should we? For the benefits..

If there's 2 million unemployed in a region and there's 500,000 jobs.. Wouldn't the people knowing that there's not enough jobs to go around be better than them confusedly not knowing? Outside of art, isn't clarity better than mystery? Or would it expose the reality of our situations to all? Would we all riot? Would you guys be dead?

Denying Unemployability (Not a real word in Google but Oxford Acknowledges)

Many people believe that there are no unemployable people, despite the fact that they see many of them on the streets every day. People write articles and books arguing against its existence. Is a person that cannot ever find acceptance in interviews employable? Does society not have it's rejects? Should they be saved? As we did to eachother?

Imagine a homeless man who people don't like to talk or listen to, with skills but no suit, nowhere to wash and a mind filled with fear and apprehension from experience.. Even though nobody will give him a job, he is somehow not unemployable.

If 'unemployables' are a myth that nobody believes in, how are 'the unemployable' ever going to get the help that they need.

"We don't care, and we're no sorry"

The shift in the availability of employment.

Why is it that twenty years ago the paradoxical 'experience to get experience' paradigm didn't exist and people could get many more jobs without experience?

Why is it that 40 years ago, jobs were given out with more eagerness and trust? Today, it seems that employers simply don't want to help communities.

We all know now that the difference between average worker pay and average executive pay has increased hugely over the years, Why are you rich people so selfish?

Since when has it been okay to never offer any kind of training, even for 'unskilled' roles? If someone can teach a new employee their role in less than a day, why must someone have experience to get an opportunity? You could even acceptably take the costs for that induction day out of the new employees wages...

"Show her the ropes"
"Do Not! Show Her! The Ropes!!"

Jobcenters not actually being centres for jobs.

There are no jobs to be found in jobcenters, people go to them only to say that the information on the staff's system is correct. That's it... no jobs, no interviews, no employment assistance.

Why are penniless jobseekers expected to spend money to travel every single weekday to their 2nd closest jobcenter, to not get a job and receive zero help?

Why is the jobcenter not a place that serves an idea-of-GOD-supporting job placement system?

Job seeking has costs, a main one being that of travel, so why not provide job seekers with travel cards that allow 2 free journeys per day? To help.. You politicians have areas where there are 15 twenty-storey blocks in a square half-mile. For most of the people living there, 'the jobs' are miles away.

As I must say all to often, NOTHINGS GONNA CHANGE for the better.. and you not believing me or sharing shit like this helps immeasurably.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

The overarching issue is that employers (and other governed establishments that serve as underpins for our societies) function with barely the slightest semblance of civility, compassion or consideration.

http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/why-cant-a-brit-get-a-job-at-pret-7310609.html

http://www.city-data.com/forum/work-employment/2155202-what-unemployable-people-supposed-do-32.html

"Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonnnngggggggggggooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnggggggggggghhhh!!"

The Primary Reason UK Immigration Is Unfair

The primary issue of unfairness is that these immigrants are, in all purposes, the exact same as citizens. There is no clear difference. All free services are afforded to everyone, regardless of tax contribution.

Religion Is A Bad Joke (part 2/100)

What's the Point in Being Vegan?

I feel pity for these vegetarian martyrs, spending ten pounds on a bag of nuts. It seems most vegans are as such due to sympathy and disgust for the admittedly saddening acres of crying caged birds..

If meat shouldn't be eaten because of animals dying, what will not eating meat do? Will not eating meat stop animals from being killed in their trillions? Are these vegetarians going to the jungle to stop lions from massacring deer? Or spiders killing flies? Have any joined together petitioning to stop the cat killing Asians with a taste for dogs and live monkey brains? NO.. it's a futile act of self sacrifice like following an illogical limitation of a religion.

"Surely, if you are a vegetarian, you'll be eager to smoke a couple blunts"

"Don't act like you don't want something good!"

What are the benefits? The food is more expensive, takes more effort to prepare, looks inedible and is boring (vegans spice up their munch times with experimentation and variety -- a new kind of leaf or a new recipe for homemade flapjacks, its like a lazy mans horticulture, with skew). As well as suitable food purchases being limited, shopping trips are longer because labels need to be examined. Inconveniently and carelessly selfish, at Christmas the cooking has to be done twice, typically by someone else.

From experience, being vegan does not make you healthier: it makes you chubby with bad skin. Humans are carnivores, with physical and chemical traits that predispose them as meat-eaters. To not eat meat is to not be human, as it is to not have an opinion. We are made to eat meat. Not eating meat will damage your body.

A few of the things that vegans are not supposed to eat due to them containing Animal extracts:

(Certain) Chewing gum, ice cream, chocolate, cheese, pastries, crisps, sweets etc. 

What's a real vegan?

I suspect that for some it is an act of superiority; distancing themselves from the meat-eating mouth-breathers who do as they are supposed to. Would vegans be so against animal death and consumption if we (humanity) were, once again, prey? (#and again)

And bottom line, they're missing out: bacon sarnies and lamb chops are some of the few things to live for by natures law. Disagree? Go take ya head for a poop.

Where are my sheep?

Religion Is A Bad Joke (part 1/100)

Sarah doesn't know how old she is- probably 30- but she is just grateful to be alive...

Her parents were murdered in impoverished Uganda under the terrible regime of the war criminal Joseph Kony. Sarah was kidnapped, beaten and raped. She was then rescued and taken to to Britain, only to be trapped in the sex trade there.

Despite all that, Sarah loves God and her faith has grown..

She does not even know if the British authorities will let her stay beyond next year.. But Sarah firmly believes that Jesus will look after her, wherever she ends up...