55,000 Sign Twitter Abuse Petition After Jane Austen Campaigner Threats

AlistairCharlton writes "A petition campaigning for Twitter to improve its measures against online abuse has received more than 55,000 signatures in two days. The petition was set up in support of feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez, who faced a torrent of abusive tweets, including threats to rape and kill her, after successfully campaigning for a woman's picture to appear on a banknote; Jane Austen will appear on £10 notes from 2017."

Comments

In fairness

[squiggleslash]

...Jane Austen is just awful.

Then again I don't much care for Jerry Seinfeld either, and he's pretty much the 20th Century equivalent.

Re:In fairness

[i kan reed]

In even more fairness, 90% of everything is crap.

Re:In fairness

[TheRaven64]

If they really needed a woman to replace Charles Darwin on the notes then surely someone like Marie Curie would have been a better bet? Why not replace a scientist with another scientist?

Re:In fairness

[serviscope_minor]

...Jane Austen is just awful.

Then, frankly you have no idea what you're talking about. Well maybe you do. But I've yet to meet anyone who says what you did and does.

If you're reading e.g. Pride and Prejudice as a romance novel then you're basically missing out on most of what's there. There's a lot more there. If you look under the surface even slightly you will see a rather bleaker and very insightful social commentary. There's more to it than that as well. There's interesting observations and reflections on family interaction too. At the most basic level, it seems that parents will never cease to be an embarrassment to teenage children and vice versa.

And he's pretty much the 20th Century equivalent.

Fuck no.

Re:In fairness

[ArcadeMan]

But did you ever stop to think where you'd be without Vandelay Industries?

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

Marie Curie wasn't British....

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

"In fairness?" So it's okay to threaten to rape of kill someone if they don't share your opinion? Wow...

I know you were probably being facetious, but really: You're not helping here.

Re:In fairness

[newcastlejon]

Marie Curie wasn't English, so there's that. I would have chosen Ada Lovelace instead, who I feel is a sadly underappreciated figure.

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect M. Curie did not get chosen because the British would prefer to have the visage of actual British-born person on their currency rather than some Polish immigrant who became a French citizen.

Re:In fairness

[ocamsrazor]

I honestly think that what people like you have done to Jane Austen's work is worse than book burning.

Her work no longer exists as just her work.

Re:In fairness

[dyingtolive]

Frankly, I think they should have gone for a picture of Thatcher fighting a grizzly bear with chainsaw arms.

Now THAT'S an image you have to respect.

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it's "social commentary" and not a romance, that doesn't mean it isn't awful. Trust me, many well-read, intelligent people think Austin is pretty horrible. It is, and yes, it is pretty much old-school Seinfeld.

Get off your "I studied English Lit" high-horse, please.

Re:In fairness

[h4rr4r]

It does not matter what messages it contains, the writing is awful.
It could be the best social commentary ever written, but the writing is still awful.

I am not sure why the writing styles of so many writers that English Lit majors adore are so terrible to read. I think it is some sort of hipsterish bullshit.

I understand the need for history and seeing how the novel as a work evolved, but some of these writers seemed to be trying for Vogon poetry.

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you haven't listened to this podcast!

http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/07/04/jane-austen-game-theorist-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

Re:In fairness

[evilRhino]

Art appreciation is always subjective. One person's trash is another's treasure.

Re:In fairness

[whizbang77045]

Please leave Ada Lovelace's figure out of this.

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

Even better if they get off the English literature high horse heard first into the ground.

Re:In fairness

[serviscope_minor]

It could be the best social commentary ever written, but the writing is still awful.

Would you care to expand on that? Ifound the writing to be very pleasent, especially pleasingly terse without being stucatto. Can you give some examples, quotes, etc of things you don't like?

Austen is certainly not one to go into very long descriptive passages.

I am not sure why the writing styles of so many writers that English Lit majors adore are so terrible to read.

No idea. I didn't study English Lit beyond GCSE level and to be honest what we did in my school barely qualifies as "studying". But that's a very long rant for another day :)

Vogon poetry.

That would be: The life and opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman.

I tried to read it. I struggled to somewhere past the black page and then gave up. It's kind of entertaining in that it this sort of bonkers post modern (about 200 years early) take on the modern novel (written about 50 years after the modern novel format was first invented) and is basically wall to wall memes and pop culture circa 1750.

Basically the result is Vogon Poetry.

Re:In fairness

[serviscope_minor]

I honestly think that what people like you have done to Jane Austen's work is worse than book burning

What have I done? My sole interaction with it has been (a) reading it, (b) talking about it (among many, many other books) occasionally with a fellow nerd and now (c) writing a post on slashdot.

I don't know what you think I've done to it, but I can assure you I haven't. Well, probably not.

Re:In fairness

[serviscope_minor]

No idea. I didn't study English Lit beyond GCSE level and to be honest what we did in my school barely qualifies as "studying

And for the record what we studied was some random bits of shakespeare (midsummer night's dream, IIRC) and 1984. I think that was basically about it.

Re:In fairness

[FilmedInNoir]

Frankly, I think they should have gone for a picture of Thatcher fighting a grizzly bear with chainsaw arms. Now THAT'S an image you have to respect.

Maybe in 2077. When they think that was a normal day for British Parliament.

Re:In fairness

[squiggleslash]

If you're reading e.g. Pride and Prejudice as a romance novel then you're basically missing out on most of what's there.

Well, it's a good job I'm not then.

There's a lot more there. If you look under the surface even slightly you will see a rather bleaker and very insightful social commentary. There's more to it than that as well. There's interesting observations and reflections on family interaction too. At the most basic level, it seems that parents will never cease to be an embarrassment to teenage children and vice versa.

novels I think if you're under the impression that Jerry Seinfeld writes romantic fiction, and not social commentary, then perhaps, frankly you have no idea what you're talking about. I mean seriously, watch one episode of his tedious - almost as tedious as P&P show.

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

Not! The only woman of importance in the history of world civilization is Marie Curie, at least according to the uber edumicated elite liberal media. No woman except for Marie Curie and the girl who discovered DNA has ever done anything of importance. This is why she is the only girl mentioned when the uber edumicated elite liberal media is discussing womans rights and how woman can do just as much stuff as a man can. The media has allowed me to realize that a woman is just as much a person as a man. Thanks liberal media for keeping me informed and keeping your finger on the pulse of the world. Woman have made no other contributions to anything ever (At least none that the uber edumicated elite liberal media would know about of have an interest in).

Re:In fairness

[Samantha Wright]

Pride and Prejudice was written in 1813. The majority of its style is simply what was commonplace at the time amongst the literate elite; indeed, most English-language writing held echoes of the same manner of elocution until the later half of the twentieth century when it had become strictly a formal mode of communication and literature was reinvented to be more casual. The style reflects the content of the subject matter.

I would highly recommend working your way up to understanding a thing or two about literature before trying to pass such sweeping judgements on it. Literary studies, and indeed most of the Humanities, are concerned with history; to try and pull them apart or to focus only on the present is to completely fail to understand and ignore most of the greatest books ever written. It really does not look good to make such brazen statements.

Re:In fairness

[serviscope_minor]

Well, it's a good job I'm not then.

Then what?

Why not elaborate? Either that or it's just a back and forth of "it's crap", "no it isn't", "yes it is", etc.

Here's something concrete:

One of the things I like to see in books is something like social commentary or insignt into the human condition. A lot of no space-opera sci-fi is either overtly about that kind of thing or has strong undertones of it. I like that and it so happens I like it in other genres too.

So go on, what is it that you dislike? Can you point to anything other than very vague impressions?

Re:In fairness

[rs79]

No aliens. No spies.

Dude, it's a minor work.

Re:In fairness

[Jeremy Erwin]

Right you are. If they absolutely had to put an authoress on the banknote, why not pick Mary Shelley, who at least had the sense to write about more than just the prattling of womenfolk. Jane Austen couldn't even write a proper gothic romance-- Northanger Abbey is too self-concious a work, never reaching the magisterial heights of Mysteries of Udolpho. It's almost as if she was trying to parody something.

Re:In fairness

[Artifakt]

Stevenson's The Weir of Hermiston. It's unfinished, in a way that makes you cringe approaching the non-end. It has lots of real Vogon poetry style passages because Stevenson relied on his editor to trim the purple prose bits, and the Ex was seriously disappointed that she couldn't find Hermiston anywhere on her map of Pern.

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA has Britishmen on their notes, why can't the UK put a French?

Re:In fairness

[serviscope_minor]

I'll ignore the most stupid parts of your post, since there's really nothing I can say except let your own words speak for themselves.

Jane Austen couldn't even write a proper gothic romance-- Northanger Abbey is too self-concious a work,

It's almost as if she was trying to parody something.

Well done! You understood the book! No woosh for you!

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

You know they're only ever going to allow one computer science figure at a time, and I'd prefer Alan Turing, myself.

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to ignore his actual point... the second paragraph.

Seinfeld is social commentary, but you do not happen to like it. on the flipside JA was social commentary, the other poster happen not to like it.

You also happened to disagree with Seinfeld being social commentary with a nice "fuck no", how is that for an argument?

You may not be, but you sure do come off sounding like, an elitist

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

Try as I may, I've been unable to unravel your layers of sarcasm to understand what your opinion is.

Re:In fairness

[K. S. Kyosuke]

In even more fairness, 90% of everything is crap.

Which makes "of" the only non-crappy part of your comment (and mine).

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you used "of" twice, doesn't that mean your post is only 80% crap?

And if so, doesn't that violate the rule that 90% of everything is crap?

I'm so confused.

Re:In fairness

[K. S. Kyosuke]

It could be the best social commentary ever written, but the writing is still awful.

Perhaps it's like with Shakespeare - foreigners like me enjoy it more because we have modern translation. I liked the book. But then again, I have an unhealthy interest in [pre]history.

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

"Look at me! I'm gonna bash hipsters while referencing one of the lamest, most painfully drawn-out 'funny' books in the history of the world."

Bashing Jane Austen while referencing Douglas Adams in a non-ironic way pretty much invalidates your opinion on anything literary, champ.

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

Applying this rule recursively to the remaining 10%, we can prove that everything is crap.

Re:In fairness

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The majority of its style is simply what was commonplace at the time amongst the literate elite; indeed, most English-language writing

Note that you've just used a semicolon, and put an "indeed" right after it to boot, without having to have your forehead tattooed beforehand. That places you in the top five or so percent of English-speaking population and means that you live brains apart from the people whose life has a very small intersection with the realm of ink splodges forming legible patterns on a processed cellulose substrate, making your attempt at explaining quite futile.

Re:In fairness

[heikenj]

I would love to be alive in another 200 years when English Lit majors like yourself start defending Twilight for it's deep social commentary. Some people read books for the story, not to figure out what the author was really trying to say. If an author has a message, they should write what they mean. Besides, everything is open to interpretation. Just because you see certain meaning in Austins work doesn't mean that's what she intended. I have read and dissected Pride and Prejudice. I didn't like it. That doesn't mean I didn't understand it. It means, I didn't like the story, or her writing style. And, let's face it: most Americans who have read Jane Austin have done so because their high school English teacher made them. That's not the best way to instill a love of literature in people.

Re:In fairness

[Zemran]

Jane Austen is irrelevant, I always thought that the Queen was a woman so there is already a woman on a 10 UKP note.

Re:In fairness

[phantomfive]

It does not matter what messages it contains, the writing is awful. It could be the best social commentary ever written, but the writing is still awful. I am not sure why the writing styles of so many writers that English Lit majors adore are so terrible to read. I think it is some sort of hipsterish bullshit.

This is the most hilarious thing I've ever seen you write. The key point you are missing is that people actually talked that way back then. English actually evolves. I know, history is confusing.

Re:In fairness

[Zemran]

The Queen is a woman and she is already on the thing...

Re:In fairness

[squiggleslash]

Then what?

Kinda funny thing really. Most people who have opinions on JA and P&P have done some kind of English Lit course. In these courses, you're generally expected to read the articles you comment on in full before commenting on them, largely because if you just read the first few words and immediately made an answer you'd, well, look like an imbecile.

Given your responses both to my original comment and to this one, perhaps, maybe, you should take one of these courses?

Re:In fairness

[heikenj]

Even back in 1813 people were churning out books to make money. I'm not saying that's what Jane Austin was doing, but others were. The books they wrote are the equivalent to today's best sellers. They were intended to tell a story that would entertain people for a time. Some books get over analyzed, and I believe Pride and Prejudice is one of them. I think Austin wrote it to tell a story, primarily, and to mock current social norms secondarily. Lord help us when 200 years from now Harry Potter is being studied to figure out what Rowling was really trying to say about society.

Re:In fairness

[Zemran]

Alan Turin was almost a woman...

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

because they are French...

Re:In fairness

[Zemran]

"There's a lot more there. If you look under the surface even slightly you will see a rather bleaker and very insightful social commentary. There's more to it than that as well. There's interesting observations and reflections on family interaction too. At the most basic level, it seems that parents will never cease to be an embarrassment to teenage children and vice versa."

So it is a novel then?

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting Alan on the notes would certainly be lot nicer than the pardon he was given, it would also be a nod to the gay/lesbian people. But perhaps thats still not good enough for this person advocating JA - because it seems to be mostly a matter of it having to be a woman - any woman, than the right _person_

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not sure why the writing styles of so many writers that English Lit majors adore are so terrible to read.

I just re-read Gibson's Sprawl trilogy, after over 9000 years.

The writing was painful. Still an epic, ridiculously insightful story - but my god, the writing.

It isn't just English Lit majors and their objects of affection. The facts are, writing anything worth reading is hard work. Most authors concentrate on the story. Few concentrate on the wordplay. And even fewer are any good at it.

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

...Jane Austen is just awful.

Then, frankly you have no idea what you're talking about. Well maybe you do. But I've yet to meet anyone who says what you did and does.

If you're reading e.g. Pride and Prejudice as a romance novel then you're basically missing out on most of what's there.

The problem with Jane Austen is that she exhausts her repertoire. If you only read "Pride and Prejudice", you end up ahead. "Emma" is probably the best of the rest, but already more tiresome. And then you should really stop because the other novels are just the same same essence spread thinner.

It's similar with the Brontë sisters: read the best from each of the sisters, and then stop. Possibly before reading Anne altogether.

That's not highly unusual for the era: you would not survive much more beyond Samuel Richardson's "Pamela" either (but on its own, it is a reasonably entertaining enterprise), but then nobody in his right mind would think of putting him on a banknote.

If we are talking about Victorian one novel wonders, W. M. Thackeray's "Vanity Fair" beats "Pride and Prejudice" pants down. Again, nobody would put him on a banknote. Banknote calibre would be more like Dickens.

Re:In fairness

[pla]

I don't know what you think I've done to it, but I can assure you I haven't. Well, probably not.

The GP means that you've retconned her work into some modern narrative of suppressed female authors semi-secretly penning a body of deeply insightful social commentary, rather than letting it stand as the tripe bit of fluff Austen meant to (and did write.

Yes, it contains quite a lot of vaguely interesting trivia about pre-Victorian English society - In much the same way that "Dallas" contains quite a lot of vaguely interesting trivia about the geography of Texas.

Standing on her own, without the rosy tint of modern revisionism, Austen produced nothing but poorly-written cheesy romance novels, the era-equivalent of a Harlequin Romance (minus anything even remotely titillating, so as not to incense the sensibilities of her contemporaries).

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's okay to threaten to rape of kill someone if they don't share your opinion? Wow...

I really don't understand why people don't understand trolling when it's applied to women. None of these rape or murder threats are serious; they're just done to get a rise out of the recipient. And it works every fucking time.

In every one of these situations, it's almost like the target is brand new to the internet. "Ooh, I got some nasty messages. It must be misogyny!" No, it really isn't. Get the fuck over yourself. Anyone who sticks their neck out for any reason gets vitriol spewed at them. But when it happens to a woman? OMG! Stop the presses!

Think the guys who reclassified Pluto as a non-planet received nothing but messages saying "I disagree with you, but I understand your reasoning"?

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, that use of a semicolon, I would count as wrong: the two clauses aren't related enough to warrant it. In either case, the writing is certainly a run-on. It's grammatically correct (ignoring the opinion that the semi-colon is inappropriate because it's not related enough,) but it's still bad writing.

Re:In fairness

[i kan reed]

Sure, for escalating degrees of elitism, that is absolutely true.

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI troll, this is an article about Britain, a land where "liberal", "socialist" and "universal healthcare" are not dirty words. "Crevice"... now that's a dirty word, and "leak" is apparently positively disgusting, so at least we've got some common ground after all.

Try harder next time, or don't.
Actually, just don't.

Re:In fairness

[flimflammer]

His point, regardless if it's valid or not in this instance, is how much we the reader see in books that isn't actually there. Due to our own personal beliefs, we see things relevant to those beliefs in the books we read, when more often than not the author never actually intended for such a secondary meaning in the first place. It can become so pervasive that the original intent of the author is completely lost as these secondary meanings become accepted as the truth.

Re:In fairness

[flabordec]

Totally! Just because it is social commentary and not a romance doesn't mean it isn't awful, you should totally trust the anonymous coward and the many well-read, intelligent people he is making up!!

And yes, he did not provide any counter-arguments other than his inexpert opinion (which is so much better than your English literature major opinion on English literature), but still this is something that he just knows because of his faith and if you believe in something with enough faith we all know it automatically makes it truth.

Of course some people will argue that even if she was a terrible writer that does not give people the right to harass a woman that campaigned for something she wanted but those idiots are missing the point, and I don't have to tell you what the point is because several well-read, intelligent people I am making up know what the point is.

Re:In fairness

[h4rr4r]

Sure it does, but newsflash people are still writing new works and translating the old. I don't read Dante in the original either.

Re:In fairness

[newcastlejon]

Try to put Thatcher on the tenner and you'll have a civil war before the ink is dry. If you thought the North vs. South thing was bad in the States, just wait and see what happens when the two sides have a few centuries of enmity behind them.

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean 95% of the population is un-datable.

Re:In fairness

[Zemran]

If we are to enter a truly non-sexist non-whatever then sex etc, should not be a relevant criteria so to choose JA is sexist and I am opposed, but as elsewhere I still have to say that there is already a picture of a woman on the other side...

Re:In fairness

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Honestly, that use of a semicolon, I would count as wrong: the two clauses aren't related enough to warrant it.

Lose the comma after "semicolon", and use a dash instead of a colon. I would terminate it with an exclamation point and a :)

Re:In fairness

[Oligonicella]

And, much like Jane Austen's characters, you speak in hyperbole. Her prose is tepid at best.

Re:In fairness

[Mister Transistor]

You can only converge on absolute crappiness, but never actually achieve it, like a perfect vacuum.

By that theorem, even the crappiest thing has a tiny percentage of non-crappiness.

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you're trolling, but if not you must be functionally illiterate. Jane Austen is one of the few authors where you feel that every word is just right and couldn't be improved. Seriously, as a guy I waited a long time to read anything by her, and when I finally did I was blown away by the quality of her writing.

Re:In fairness

[Talderas]

Screw that. A picture of a grizzly bear with chainsaw arms would be awesome enough.

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

"Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college." -Vonnegut (being partially sarcastic)

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure those scientists didn't receive correspondence anywhere near as eloquent as your example, but I also sincerely doubt they received rape threats.

My point being, whether it's death, rape or any other type of threat it's unsuitable. It's unnecessary. In the shroud of anonymity the internet provides it gives people a chance to show their true inner ass-hat, that they aren't afforded the opportunity to show on a daily real life basis, for feel of social stigma or physical repercussion. (Threats in person hold much more legal consequence than online; unless you're a LoL player anyways...)

Perhaps if rape wasn't treated as a non-crime in even developed countries it wouldn't be seen as such a severe and serious threat. If so many rape's weren't a he said she said, rape kits are abortions nonsense festival, perhaps we could have less irrational fears against someone who anonymously threatens it. (I say irrational because statistics like to claim most rapes aren't by the shrouded, cloaked mystery alley man, but a friend or family member.)

Re:In fairness

[Raenex]

Lord help us when 200 years from now Harry Potter is being studied to figure out what Rowling was really trying to say about society.

There is that whole "muggles" thing going on. Quite racist/elitist.

Re:In fairness

[Samantha Wright]

I think a "whoosh" may be in order. At the time such questionable applications were quite commonplace, as the rules hadn't quite settled in. If you keep going back, then by the Middle Ages you will discover that entire paragraphs are concatenated out of wildly independent clauses using rather stilted-looking conjunctions and puncti. I was hamming it up a little for the sake of theatre. Perhaps I should berate you for such a rare and archaic use of a colon?

Re:In fairness

[Samantha Wright]

The colon's right: dashes aren't real punctuation marks. Any time you see a dash, it's either a comma or a colon that's been drawn out into a breathing mark. Colons were once employed widely whenever a statement explained the previous one.

Re:In fairness

[Applekid]

"In fairness?" So it's okay to threaten to rape of kill someone if they don't share your opinion? Wow...

I know you were probably being facetious, but really: You're not helping here.

Rape threats and other cases of "angry menz syndrome" are actually agent provocateur campaigns made possible through the anonymity of the internet, for the express purpose of gaining allies to their cause, no matter what the cause is. Under fictional assaults, women who may not care either way of course defend their sisters, but even men join the cause and join a white knight campaign to prove that they themselves aren't misogynists and in order to gain favor with women called to action.

Consider: if these were genuine threats, why weren't the authorities involved? Why has no one been arrested or investigated? From Anna Sarkeesian to Caroline Criado-Perez, perhaps if they pressed charges then it would be discovered that all these claims are completely fabricated for publicity and as an appeal to emotion.

Not only that, statistics show that a rapist is most likely to be someone the victim already knows. There is no purpose to threatening a complete stranger, and no chance of follow through. It's still a crime, however.

Re:In fairness

[Samantha Wright]

I take it you're not exactly friends, then.

Re:In fairness

[Samantha Wright]

Overanalysis is inevitable (you'd be absolutely appalled at how many analyses have been written of Shakespearean characters) but not really pertinent to h4rr4r's complaints.

Going slightly off-topic, don't even bother with Rowling; we already have plenty of examples of earlier 20th Century literature being mangled. You'd be amazed at how many people have interpreted Lord of the Rings as anti-industrial despite Tolkien's explicit pleas.

Re:In fairness

[ttucker]

I hope you're trolling, but if not you must be functionally illiterate. Jane Austen is one of the few authors where you feel that every word is just right and couldn't be improved. Seriously, as a guy I waited a long time to read anything by her, and when I finally did I was blown away by the quality of her writing.

Good for you?

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

...Jane Austen is just awful.

Then, frankly you have no idea what you're talking about. Well maybe you do. But I've yet to meet anyone who says what you did and does.

I realize you've never met him, but:

To me his prose is unreadable -- like Jane Austin's [sic]. No there is a difference. I could read his prose on salary, but not Jane's. Jane is entirely impossible. It seems a great pity that they allowed her to die a natural death.

- Mark Twain in a letter to W. D. Howells, 18 January 1909

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

The main criticism I have with Pride and Prejudice is that I found it to be incredibly boring and the majority of the characters were rather annoying. Additionally, not being a teenage girl when I was forced to read this novel in high school, I found it difficult to relate to anyone in the story. Between that, Tess of the D'urbervilles, and The Awakening, I was finally cured of my insomnia.

Re:In fairness

[serviscope_minor]

You want Austen translated? It's crystal clear!

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

Feminist, like their racial counterparts, sometimes exist to ensure that their group isn't discriminated against. However, as discrimination has become nearly irrelevant (compared to 1800s, early 1900s) that activist attitude can't magically just turn off. It is fairly common for people who are passionate enough about a particular movement to actually be so violently for that group because they are discriminatory the other direction (Men suck, women rule!). Some do that because they feel they have to swing the pendulum far enough past the line that any pushback will only return it to the parity that they originally sought. Others do that because they really are just as misandristic as their targeted opponents are misogynistic. Jane Austen could just be a person to be submitted for consideration to fill the spot on a bank note, just as valid as any other notable historical figure.

Re:In fairness

[serviscope_minor]

I can't believe I'm arguing English literature with someone who confuses "trite" and "tripe", but whatever.

To look at the social commentary all you have to do is examine the fate of some of the secondary characters. It is very clearly not a good fate.

Re:In fairness

[interkin3tic]

And in yet MORE fairness, for everything you think goes in that 10%, you will find people online loudly telling the world how much they hate that thing.

I will demonstrate this by trolling for such people:

Ahem... I LOVE the following things:

-Rap music
-Halo 3
-Team fortress 2
-Sex
-The Matrix
-Inception
-Beer

Anyone care to comment on... hang on, just got a text that TF2 is extremely overrated and blah blah blah.. and oh, I've just been tapped on the shoulder and someone is telling me that sex is overrated. My wife.

Re:In fairness

[interkin3tic]

And Jesus wasn't a Christian, but those humps sure put his mug on everything. Then again, they chose the instrument of his death as their symbol, so I guess that kind of cancels it out.

Re:In fairness

[i kan reed]

That's just the 90% of everything being crap plus half the remainder for your gender preference.

Re: In fairness

[jonbryce]

Marie Curie was French. British pound notes have British people on them. My preferred choice is Ada Lovelace.

Re:In fairness

[Samantha Wright]

Ah, but you're mistaken; there were popular-but-terrible books in every era. You just don't know about them because they're so awful no one bothered to preserve them, hence the moniker "penny dreadfuls." Twilight will not be remembered; perhaps the only trash of this period that will is Fifty Shades of Grey, and even then only because it broke sales records. There are still good writers around today, they're just not so respected or well-known because of the current bloatedness of presentism and popular culture. (Stick around, though; that last part might change as we millennials get sufficiently picky.)

Re:In fairness

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Uff, friends with...whom exactly? (I only have one personality (that I'm aware of!) so I must have missed some context.)

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

That is true. He's unlikely to change his routine.

Re:In fairness

[K. S. Kyosuke]

the two clauses aren't related enough to warrant it.

I'm puzzled by that. CMoS claims that "[in] regular prose, a semicolon is most commonly used between two independent clauses not joined by a conjunction to signal a closer connection between them than a period would." I don't know, but that seems to make it acceptable to me, perhaps even preferable. Not being a native speaker, however, I'm always willing to learn something new.

Re:In fairness

[Samantha Wright]

With h4rr4r, who I was replying to?

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

making your attempt at explaining quite futile.

Indeed.

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, I think they should have gone for a picture of Thatcher fighting a grizzly bear with chainsaw arms.

That would be promoting cruelty to animals with chainsaw arms.

Re:In fairness

[XcepticZP]

You remind me of that South Park episode... "Smug Alert".

Re:In fairness

[K. S. Kyosuke]

H4rr4r? I vaguely remember disagreeing with him on some issues in the past, but otherwise I don't care either way. I quite like Austen, although as I said, that could be due to me having been exposed to her translated works first; I still have to read the originals. (I'd like to use the bitexts for some private NLP research.) As with Shakespeare, it makes the work much closer to the contemporaries for foreighners that is the case with English theatre patrons, even though the translation is still a little bit idiosyncratic - as in, it uses a language that is a little bit historical (but one that is probably still closer to our modern vernacular, it's certainly nowhere nearly as weird as the Czech language of the 1810's).

Re:In fairness

[XcepticZP]

Are you implying his motive for going against you was purely in defense of his "friend"? Typical drama misdirection, or some sort of psychological denial on your part, perhaps? Maybe you should take some of your own advice and work your way up to understanding a thing or two about conversation and debate.

Re:In fairness

[K. S. Kyosuke]

You were deliberately being archaic? Seeing as I fail to interpret it as anything else but a normal text, my L2 speaker knobs must be adjusted improperly. (If we're discussing the development in prose style, try reading some English prose from king Alfred's time - it's sentences beginning with "Ond.." all over the place.)

Re:In fairness

[pla]

I can't believe I'm arguing English literature with someone who confuses "trite" and "tripe", but whatever.

I can see your confusion, but believe it or not, I actually meant to call it a load of dingo's kidneys, rather than overused and banal. For some reason on revision I added "bit of fluff" after the fact, totally throwing that sentence off. Mea culpa.

To look at the social commentary all you have to do is examine the fate of some of the secondary characters. It is very clearly not a good fate.

I didn't say it lacks in social commentary. I implied that any meaningful social commentary it contains occurs purely by accident. Thus the analogy to Dallas-vs-the-geography-of-Texas. Or perhaps more apropos, like an in-depth analysis of the late 20th century culinary arts as expressed through the medium of home pizza delivery service in such classics as "Did you want sausage with that?" and "Anal sluts 7".

Re:In fairness

[manicb]

I'm fairly sure that dashes can also be used in the manner of matched commas or ellipses – as is common in gothic literature – but they do carry a little ambiguity. I find the main benefit is that they reduce the formality of the text – as in speech, sometimes the pacing of a flow of ideas is of more interest than the exact relationships.

Perhaps the rule should be that a person has to demonstrate proper use of a semicolon before they are permitted to use a long dash?

Re:In fairness

[Samantha Wright]

Youch, you're totally misreading things. I was more concerned that he seemed to be passing judgement on h4rr4r as being "not in the top five percent."

Re:In fairness

[zeidrich]

Police were involved. A man was arrested.

FTA: "Scotland Yard has confirmed that a 21-year-old man was arrested by police in the Manchester area on 28 July on suspicion of harassment offences."

Whether it's a fabricated appeal to emotion is irrelevant; It's unacceptable. It's also really easy to avoid: don't threaten to rape people.

Re:In fairness

[K. S. Kyosuke]

It was an elaborate attempt at a joke. Or an attempt at an elaborate joke? Anyway, I'm really bad insofar impressing ironic intonation into inscriptions is involved, innit?

Re:In fairness

[Kiwikwi]

Rape threats and other cases of "angry menz syndrome" are actually agent provocateur campaigns made possible through the anonymity of the internet, for the express purpose of gaining allies to their cause, no matter what the cause is.

Yup, it's all just a conspiracy. Applekid is in fact also a woman, only pretending to be a misogynistic douchebag in order to gain support for her radical feminist notions (such as allowing women to be depicted on bank notes!).

(Of course, by Applekid's logic, I am also just a woman seeking to defend my sisters and/or a man trying to gain favors with women by posting snarky comments on Slashdot. Because OkCupid is so last decade.)

Re:In fairness

[sandbagger]

That is an amazing sig, sir.

Re:In fairness

[phantomfive]

I don't read Dante in the original either.

I didn't expect you read Italian. Or any other language besides English, for that matter, given how provincial your taste in literature seems to be.

Re:In fairness

[Pseudonym]

And Jesus wasn't a Christian, but those humps sure put his mug on everything.

I'm 99% certain the Bank of England has never done that.

Re:In fairness

[Pseudonym]

FWIW, James Watt is going to be on the new 50. More of an engineer than a scientist, but still a fine choice.

My pick would have been Mary Cartwright, but that might be too soon. How long do you have to have been dead for to get a banknote?

Re:In fairness

[Samantha Wright]

Hmmmmm. Okay. I think I can see that with enough squinting. Try slathering on more italics in the future.

Re:In fairness

[Pseudonym]

I was forced to read this novel in high school

No wonder you found it boring. High school English classes have this way of making even the best books tedious and mind-numbing.

Re:In fairness

[Samantha Wright]

That sounds like a good plan all around. (And, yeah, of course they can—such 'matched' punctuation marks are really just different ways of marking parenthesis, which is a much broader category of rhetorical phenomena than most people think.)

Re:In fairness

[Phrogman]

Glad to hear it. Men may brush off threats and abuse on the Internet - and perhaps women need to grow a thicker skin in some cases - but the reality is that women who state anything remotely challenging are subject to harassment and abuse, and indeed death and rape threats on a regular basis. My wife gave up playing a few MMOs due to the *continuous* sexual harassment she received whenever she logged in - and this when its a given that every female character is actually a guy according to most male gamers (silly but it is the reason so few women want to actually admit they are female).

Were it not for the anonymity we enjoy on many websites, this would happen a lot less. That anonymity lets us post our thoughts and opinions freely and should be treasured (although seemingly its not really anonymity given the NSA etc) and its a shame that asshats feel compelled to spew forth idiotic and offensive vitriol just because they can - or because they were abused, or can't get laid, or are so obnoxious no one wants to be their friend or whatever other source of all that mindless rage and anger is. Trolls ruin the web for a lot of people.

I know there are a lot of websites my wife will simply not visit any more because bullshit like this goes on, on a regular basis. I sincerely hope they find cause to charge the guy who was arrested and he receives a harsh punishment that is well publicized if he is found guilty. Perhaps that might deter some idiots in the future.

 

Re: In fairness

[ebno-10db]

I vote for Rosalind Franklin, who should be recognized as one of the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA. Also to her credit, she left us no boring novels.

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

Second one was obviously cheap ghost-written sequel riding on the popularity of the first one.

Re:In fairness

[lennier]

never reaching the magisterial heights of Mysteries of Udolpho.

(snort) Well done! You owe me a new coffee and keyboard.

What I love about Austen is how much hasn't changed in the last 210 years:

"But, perhaps, I keep no journal."

"Perhaps you are not sitting in this room, and I am not sitting by you. These are points in which a doubt is equally possible. Not keep a journal! How are your absent cousins to understand the tenour of your life in Bath without one? How are the civilities and compliments of every day to be related as they ought to be, unless noted down every evening in a journal? How are your various dresses to be remembered, and the particular state of your complexion, and curl of your hair to be described in all their diversities, without having constant recourse to a journal?"

Ladies and gentlemen, Jane Austen and the Facebook cat macros of 1803.

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

You get one, though.

Seriously, how many people have even *heard* of "Mysteries of Udolpho" in any context other than "Northanger Abbey"?

Re: In fairness

[tysonedwards]

Does this really matter? I mean, there is already a woman featured on every banknote and coin. What was her name again... Oh yes, Queen Elizabeth II.

Re:In fairness

[Samantha Wright]

It's mostly a matter of 'indeed' frequency, I think. There are certainly more easily parsed word choices I could have fallen back on.

Also, I must commend you on your impeccable English—am I to understand you're natively a Czech speaker, given your other mention of it?

Re:In fairness

[Samantha Wright]

(There's actually no "h" in "foreign"—it and "reign" are the only two words like that. Perplexing, yes, but "gh" doesn't like to come before an "n".)

The biggest hallmark of Victorian writing is the use of very cumbersome clause arrangement. This can have great rhetorical power when wielded selectively, but at the time many of the grammatical innovations which we now take for granted were widely seen by educated people as lazy and vulgar. Moreover, some hadn't been invented yet. Along with that we've lost a lot of near-synonyms from everyday use and substituted in coarse approximations or the occasional more-precise idiomatic phrase.

Consider the following from the start of Pride and Prejudice:

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

(And note already that, as the rules regarding punctuation were far from standardized in 1813, the second comma is a splice by modern standards, and should be thought of more as a cue to pause very briefly.)

Without re-picking vocabulary, today a casual speaker might say something more like:

It is universally acknowledged that a single man with a fortune must want a wife.

Most obviously there's less use of the passive voice and other methods of phrasing things indirectly. (To be "in want of" something is particularly out of style.) Rhetorically, someone may still say something very similar to this in order to mimic historical authority and to make a statement seem more profound, but it would be rather unusual.

The second paragraph is probably along the lines of what made h4rr4r's eyes bleed:

However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.

There's a lot of preponderance here (as well as another questionable comma.) Inverting the grammar of some clauses is necessary to convert it into a more colloquial and readily-grasped thought:

When such a man first enters a neighbourhood, regardless of however little is known of his feelings or views, this truth is so fixed in the minds of the surrounding families that he is already considered the rightful property of one or another of their daughters.

I would guess that this kind of grammatical complication would get deliberately lost in any translation, since it made the English overly difficult to swallow in the first place, although certain parts may be desirable to translate—in the context of Pride and Prejudice, which is a satire about the well-to-do, this is poking fun at use of complicated language as a status symbol, but for the most part literary Victorian writers did this anyway, and you'd have to do a fair amount of reading of her other works to know if/how much Austen was really exaggerating this affectation.

Re:In fairness

[TheRaven64]

I thought Watt had already been on one, although maybe I just think that because Stephenson's Rocket was (is?) on the fiver. The main reason I object to Austen (literary merits aside: I like her books) is that it seems to be saying 'well, we can have a woman on there, as long as she's doing a suitably feminine occupation'. And once that's done, we go back to wondering why it's hard to attract women to STEM occupations. Pick a female mathematician, scientist, or engineer. This list has a few good candidates on it, but if you're only looking for ones that are old enough to already be dead the list is depressingly short for the UK compared to many other European countries.

Re:In fairness

[Xest]

"There's interesting observations and reflections on family interaction too. At the most basic level, it seems that parents will never cease to be an embarrassment to teenage children and vice versa."

This is the problem with English literature as a discipline and why it's often bollocks. People make stuff up and read into it more than is actually there.

There is absolutely no way that Jane Austen could've predicted in the 18th century that families would always be the same and wrote what she did so that people 200+ years down the road could say "Wow, things haven't changed much". She didn't do that, she merely wrote a novel and now with hindsight we look back and say "Wow, things haven't changed much". You're making the implication that she's somehow special in pointing this out to us but the reality is she did no such thing, we only realise it precisely because things haven't changed much in this respect and we're looking back on her writing and applying what we know now.

But we could've also realised this from any historic documents detailing such things, it's not about her writing in the slightest it's just a fact that people like you attribute to some mystical power of her to be timeless when the only thing that's really timeless is certain unchanging traits of human nature itself. It's the surprise of recognising said human traits in documents from even 200 years ago and trying to justify it to ourselves as being something more rather than simply recognising it is what it is.

I've seen so many analysis of what Shakespeare, Wordsworth and so forth "really meant" with their writings but it's complete and utter idiocy - it's just speculation, he didn't mean anything other than what he wrote and if you wish to apply your own interpretation to that then that's okay but realise this - you can do that to ANY book no matter the quality of the author. It's like saying JK Rowling was really writing about how hard life is for a fostered child and how they have to slip away in their minds to fantasy worlds to cope with the difficulties of fostered life - bollocks, she wrote an entertaining story about a fucking fictional boy wizard and that's that.

English literature like high art is almost an entirely manufactured industry full of made up shit to justify it's own existence. It's no different to fortune telling - an industry designed to mostly make shit up and convince people it's true to justify it's own continued existence.

It's also no better than the faux scientists you sometimes see, like when the story about how full moons effect sleeping patterns come about the other day and they got a guy to "explain" why that's the case on TV and he came up with the most absurd story about how humans always threw parties on full moons and so we'd evolved to sleep less on full moons because of those parties. Seriously? What. The. Fuck. Correlation is not causation and the most pathetic theory ever invented for the scenario does not suddenly prove causation either. Where do they even find these "scientists"?

I'm not saying there aren't books out there that were written with hidden meanings, an example off the top of my head would probably be of course Alice in Wonderland, but to apply that mindset to every famous historical book written is taking it to the extreme and completely wrong, just as doing the same for every famous book today is absurd - as in my Harry Potter example. Similarly Game of Thrones isn't a commentary on medieval European history with the likes of the great wall referring to Hadrian's wall, King's Landing and London and so forth - no, it's just a fictional storyline where the author took a few ideas from European medieval history as a basis for that story. It says nothing about how things really were, where they were or how they actually happened.

I'm not an English lit major but I was top of my class in the top class in the school at GCSE despite having felt it was bollocks then, and still feeling little different now. A large part of believing it was bollocks then

Re:In fairness

[K. S. Kyosuke]

(There's actually no "h" in "foreign"—it and "reign" are the only two words like that. Perplexing, yes, but "gh" doesn't like to come before an "n".)

You are right of course, but this is somewhat lost on me. I don't have a problem with spelling [*], at least in this area. The issue at hand is the fact that "h" happens to be next to "g" on my keyboard, and my fingers are not exactly renowned for their dexterity, so this is to be expected. (My lack of finger dexterity might have something to do with me being left-handed; a fact that my nursery school teachers considered too sinister to bear and tried to "fix", with predictable results. (I apologize for the directional puns.)) The problem is somewhat compounded by the spelling checker in Firefox Nightly obstinately refusing to work for me; I probably ought to do something about it right away. (The release version is fine, but I like to try out new stuff.)

([*] As opposed to *pronunciation*, at least sometimes - Kansas, Arkansas...are you kidding me? That one got me stumped even more than finding out about American and English lieutenants - I guess I'm more of a book guy, and you don't notice these things when reading.)

Regarding the examples you're mentioning, I don't find them particularly bothersome. Perhaps it's a quirk of L2 readers, the marginal effort in reading a book two centuries old being less significant than might be the case for L1 readers. But then again, I do enjoy reading Edward Gibbon, so I may be a bit biased in this respect. The only problematic thing I find about reading Austen is the occasional lexical shift that forces me to research what connotations certain expressions have, but even that is a marginal effort since when reading a good novel, not being a native, I'm lost for meaning sometimes and have to do some dictionary diving anyway. OED be blessed.)

I would guess that this kind of grammatical complication would get deliberately lost in any translation

When translating historical works, it is common to use *somewhat* historical means of expression, but it's never taken to the same level as the original writing perceived by a contemporary native speaker of the same language as you don't want to alienate your audience with text that half of them would find too difficult to decipher. Forget Shakespeare for now, even Austen's books happen to have been translated into my native tongue in a style that's noticeably non-modern, not something that even an august and preeminent writer would want to use, but they're *still* a whole lot better than, say, some of our books from the 1920's, and their slight notion of historicity is hardly detracting. (I was once shown one such pulp fiction book by a friend of mine - a book she noticed in a secondhand bookstore and thought it amusing to read. Indeed, it *was* amusing to read, the silliness was almost unbearable. I'm of course familiar with *major* works of that period in our literature, but I had never been exposed to something like this at school and when you combine the date of its origin with the fact that this was what would be considered thrash even nowadays, you're in for quite some hilarity.)

but for the most part literary Victorian writers did this anyway, and you'd have to do a fair amount of reading of her other works to know if/how much Austen was really exaggerating this affectation.

Austen, of course, being a Georgian writer, and perhaps not as amenable to being compared to Victorian writers as would be the case when comparing her writings to the writings of her Georgian peers.

Re:In fairness

[K. S. Kyosuke]

am I to understand you're natively a Czech speaker, given your other mention of it?

That happens to be the case.

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

This asshole is modded +5 Insightful for saying Jerry Seinfeld is romantic fiction? WTF?

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

Lord help us when 200 years from now Harry Potter is being studied to figure out what Rowling was really trying to say about society.

Clearly the unicorn blood was a metaphor for nanoaugmentation and the horcruxes a foreshadowing of host-cloning. That's not even getting into how "Voldemorte" is obviously a reference to Global Overlord Martin Valdez, taken as a whole, the entirety of that character is a warning that GO Valdez will succumb to ever growing inhumanity with each body-transfer, but that his path was already destined for failure when he first had the nanite treatment for his limp. Similarly, the detail of Harry wearing glasses rather than having had biosculpted replacement eyes grown shows the superiority of accepting reality rather than fixing it.

Re:In fairness

[karmawarrior]

+5 insightful for making an assumption that implies you think Jerry Seinfeld writes romance novels. WTF? What an idiot.

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

It may not be that a woman on a banknote is objectionable. I really hope that's not it, at least. The issue that these twitter users have may be that they're replacing Charles Darwin with some author-who-most-don't-even-like.

I mean, it's freaking DARWIN. Also, isn't the Queen already on one or more notes?

Re: In fairness

[jonbryce]

Yes, she is another good choice.

Re:In fairness

[Stargoat]

Absolutely to this and some more besides. Austen was, particularly in Persuasion, mocking the very society that read her books.

Further, her ideas of the novel as an internal monologue were revolutionary. Before Austen (ok and maybe Murasaki in some sort of weird lost art way), novels were based on action rather than ego.

Austen is a British treasure. She definitely belongs on the bill.

Re:In fairness

[ArcadeMan]

It was "borrowed" from another Slashdot user. You can borrow it too if you want. The more people use it, the funnier it will be.

Hopefully the NSA guys are bright enough to filter out the exact same meaningless sentence billions of times.

Re:In fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look under the surface even slightly you will see a rather bleaker and very insightful social commentary. There's more to it than that as well. There's interesting observations and reflections on family interaction too. At the most basic level, it seems that parents will never cease to be an embarrassment to teenage children and vice versa.

So, it's like the 19th century version of South Park?

Re:In fairness

[squiggleslash]

Nobody is justifying making threats. All we're saying is that Jane Austin is just awful. Which she is.

Remember that the defense posted here is "OK, you may have compared her to Jerry Seinfeld, but I'm going to ignore that and pretend you hate her because you think she writes romantic fiction." If you cannot make an argument against someone's view without misrepresenting their view (and doing so to a point that's completely absurd), then you have no argument. Like Seinfeld, she writes low grade social observation comedy, often, but not always, centered around dating and the bizarre social rules that apply. And like Seinfeld, it just isn't that funny to most of us or even insightful or informative in a way a more sober description wouldn't be.

Re:In fairness

[squiggleslash]

Yes, but you also probably think Seinfeld is hilarious.

Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as it apples to everyone.
http://twitchy.com/2013/07/13/twitter-lynch-mob-threatens-to-kill-george-zimmerman/

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

*applies*, sorry.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, right? What a bunch of hippocrates.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't apply to men, sorry!

Re:Zimmerman?

[DexterIsADog]

Why isn't parent modded up? I hate that asshole Zimmerman as much as the next person, but the quality that makes us civilized is that we apply our high-falutin' standards regardless of the subject.

Come on people, you can describe Zimmerman in the most vile terms to express your opinion of him - what does it add to your position (and credibility) if you also threaten to kill him?

Re:Zimmerman?

[Sique]

Caroline Criado-Perez didn't kill anyone.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Xenx]

That shouldn't make it any better. I realize that due to human nature, it does. But, it shouldn't.

Re:Zimmerman?

[jeffmflanagan]

Threatening anyone is wrong. You linked a troll site created by the hate-fueled M. Malkin, that organizes nitwits to go derp on Twitter. Try to do better.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that we know of, yet.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Archangel Michael]

How about Sarah Palin then? Or is that "free speech" that need protecting ?

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

what does it add to your position (and credibility) if you also threaten to kill him?

Hipster/Gangsta cred

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, men who argue for things to be applied equally and fairly are misogynists.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate that asshole Zimmerman as much as the next person,

Have you ever even met him? The man was accused of something and found not guilty, but his guilt was implied by the nation news media... so you hate that asshole? Perhaps it is time to grow a spine, and maybe even a brain to attach to the end of it.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

The national media didnt "imply" his guilt by doing anything other than report the sequence of events. His guilt is pretty fucking obvious, Florida law notwithstanding.

The jury fell for the standard bullshit told to jurors before any trial - you have to vote based on this that and the other thing. You dont ~have~ to vote in any way. There are however many ways to vote wherein you cannot say ~why~ you voted that way. As a juror, you vote how you want and then shut your fucking mouth so as not to invalidate the trial.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate-fueled? Yeah right. Calling people nitwits and go derp isn't hate because your making fun of people you deem unfit. Herp De Derp loser. Your as bad as this little woman pretending to fight for some cause all the while using it to further control against us. Wanker de jour.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Dishevel]

Too much trouble. We all know that a racist (Person who mentored African Americans.) white male (Hispanic man) hunted down (was attacked by) a small child (17 year old male) who was just coming home with iced tea and skittles (to mix with his drugs to make them taste good.) and had never done anything wrong (Besides getting kicked out of school for burglary).

Facts are harder to spot than just listening to the bullet points the media throws out at you.

Re:Zimmerman?

[bfandreas]

As long as it apples to everyone. http://twitchy.com/2013/07/13/twitter-lynch-mob-threatens-to-kill-george-zimmerman/

It applies to everyone. It also applies in this case.

In all fairness the discussion if this is against Twitter's TOS or not is a moot point. Threatening somebody verbally or via Twitter with death and bodily harm is an offense in most jurisdictions and should be prosecuted as such. The problem is that jurisdictions have lost all sense of proportion and forgotten about "mens rea". Although the latter is also a concept lost on our little-esteemed lawmakers.

Is it ok to sentence a particularily bad troll to a couple of hundreds of hours of community service with no prior conviction attached? Yes! Definitely! This seems appropriate in this mad mob threatening death and rape to somebody simply for wanting a woman on a bit of paper.
Is it ok to sentence a particularly egregious troll to a jail sentence but unleash him on the unwelcoming population on probation? Possibly earning him a prior conviction? Depends. The guy who posted nasty stuff on dead teenager's tribute facebook pages would qualify for this.
Is it ok to sentence a definite madman who not only threatens but also prepares to carry out his threats? I'm fairly certain we already have laws to convict somebody for threatening and preparing for murder if we can establish his intent beyond reasonable doubt. We also had those laws before Columbine(and 9/11). So no kneejerk legislation would be needed.
Is it OK to jail a kid for a couple of months before his day in court and to set his bail at a cool 500k bob with a lengthy jail-time dangling over his head to intimidate him into a very bad plea bargain? Have you gone off your rocker? It bloody well isn't!


So much for trolling. The other issue is why people think this is acceptable behaviour. It isn't If you behaved like this in meat-space and then turned up at a police station to complain about your somewhat broken nose they'd might break the other one and send you on your merry way. If you and your broken noses actually faced the guy who smacked you around for a bit in front of a judge the judge would most likely throw the whole case out because your vile behaviour was the main cause for your nose-breakage.


There is a difference between trolling just to take a dump in a discussion and actual hurtful trolling. In this case a young woman campaigned for a cause she felt passionately about but which to the most of us was a cause of supreme indifference. Yet an angry mob slapped her down in a most vile and nasty fashion. And yet we wonder why women don't participate in politics, IT, business and other areas as much as we'd hope for. That's 50% of human-kind not contributing to their fullest potential. Small wonder when the other 50% resorts to this bile or more underhanded methods. In a better world these guys would qualify for Darwin awards by not procreating. Which sometimes makes me wonder...
I really, really hope this guy who got nicked(and the sorry rest of those) gets sentenced to some humiliating community service. Or better still a place where he can actually help ease the excesses this mindset brought forward. I should be "volunteered" to assist in a womans shelter and be thrown into jail if he just as much as utters one snide remark.


This is NOT a freedom of speech issue. This is not a Twitter TOS issue. Shutting down his Twitter account is not quite sufficient. And this is not an issue for new kneejerk legislation that could potentially put him into jail for the next 5 years. But it is an issue for true punitive action. Because it is so wrong on so many levels I wouldn't even know where to stop.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

You left out that it wasn't iced tea, it was watermelon fruit punch.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between racism and racial profiling.

Hispanic is white. There is no "hispanic" race. The "spanic" part is derived from Spain which is white europe. They may have some native blood in them but they are white.

Hearsay on the last one. Not admissible.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Dishevel]

Sorry

Re:Zimmerman?

[jeffmflanagan]

Too cowardly to post under your own name while insulting people? Sounds like you're one of the Twitchy twits. The AC complained about harassment, and then linked to a site that gives nutjobs their marching orders to go harass people on Twitter. At the very least the post was hilariously ironic.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Dishevel]

Not admissible? We are not in court. This is public opinion. The court already had its say. Innocent.

What we want to do is hang him anyway.

BTW. Hispanics are only white on government forms. the media has ALWAYS separated them from the evil white man. Except when they want to paint him as an "Evil white man".

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

The national media didnt "imply" his guilt by doing anything other than report the sequence of events. His guilt is pretty fucking obvious, Florida law notwithstanding.

'guilt' in this context implies he did something illegal. It is far from obvious that he did so.

He is 'guilty' of defending himself from an attack where he felt that his life was in danger. If you think his 'guilt' of any of the crimes he was charged with is obvious, then you have a much lower burden of proof than our legal system does - I'm glad we live in a free country, and not your racist dystopia, where any time something happens, it's always a hate crime.

Re:Zimmerman?

[bfandreas]

Threatening to kill somebody is not OK. While Criado-Perez makes it much easier to be sympathetic to her the same courtesies apply to Zimmerman. Even with gnashed teeth. While you have to keep in mind that the Martin case and all sordid little details around it has heated the discussion up quite a bit nobody has the right to kill anybody with premeditation. Actually that lynch-mob of Twatters is a bit ironic when you come to think of it.
The issue with the Criado-Perez mob is a bit different. You can't argue that you were nasty in the heat of the moment because it is very hard to show that you were that passionate about Austen making in on a 20 quid note. And it is quite, quite easy to show that their threats were made out of sheer spite and malice. This is not as easy to show in the Zimmerman mob.

After a couple of beers AND a lot of teary "documentaries" I might have joined the Zimmerman mob myself. I think that highly unlikely due to my self-restraint but definitely not impossible. But no matter how shit-faced drunk I were I would NEVER resort to threaten a woman no matter who or why with rape and murder. The line which I don't cross is quite a bit away from that.


So while both cases are similar and both cases are wrong, the culpability is a bit different. Which is why we need to remember to put "mens rea" back into our laws(even the stupid knee-jerk ones) because the spirit in which the offense was done in should reflect the punitive action.(See that kid who has been in jail for 6 months over threatening a killing spree "lol jk" before he even got his day in court)
Also a little bit of critical thinking would help to find where the different nuances in those cases. One-liners only win discussions in Hollywood. Which makes Twitter so especially pointless.

Re:Zimmerman?

[spire3661]

The problem is, we are really only hearing about this because its a female, which adds some meta to the mix. Men get death threats ALL THE TIME, no one suggests we hunt down the perps for them.

Re:Zimmerman?

[bfandreas]

What do you refer to? Her speeches or the animosity towards her? I assume the latter though hateful as she is she never to my knowledge threatened to have anybody killed unless he was of the beard/brown persuasion. Threatening to kill her during her election campaign might not only have been crimminally discourteous but also stupidly suicidal. IIRC the Secret Service is also looking after campaigning would-be Vice Presidents.
Snarkyness is ok. Murder-death-kill-threats are never.

Why is this discussion even neccessary?

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can say whatever you want then. I can say that George Zimmerman was thinking in his head how he wished he could join the clan. It's equally bullshit.

The finding was "Not Guilty" which is very different from "Innocent". The jury decided that there was not enough evidence provided to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether George Zimmerman committed 2nd degree murder or the lesser charge of manslaughter.

Doesn't matter what the media calls him. He is white and potentially he targeted Trayvon Martin based on his color and the way he was dressed. He may not be "racist" like a klan member but it is very likely that racial profiling went through his mind. You have to ask the question - what about Trayvon set off alarm bells in his head?

And no matter what you say - Trayvon was still an innocent young man who was doing nothing illegal at the time. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

At the very least Mr. Zimmerman is guilty of overzealous vigilantism. If he didn't feel big and safe with his gun and the "stand your ground" laws behind him then Trayvon would still be alive and Mr. Zimmerman wouldn't be getting death threats.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Curunir_wolf]

Haters gotta hate. Might as well let them rant on the Tweeters so we at least know who the haters are, than trying to hide them. If you are going to start deleting all they misogynist comments, how about deleting all the misandrist ones, too, including the ones from haters like Joy Behar and Catherine MacKinnon?

Interestingly, my spell checker knows all about misogyny and its variations, but doesn't acknowledge the existance of misandry at all.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Subtle, but important error: the court found him not guilty. This is completely separate from being found innocent.

Re:Zimmerman?

[DutchUncle]

hunted down (was attacked by)

Sorry, have to argue with this part. I'm a white male. If somebody were following me at night in a pickup truck, and then got out of his pickup truck and chased me, I'd consider that I was being "hunted down" . . . and react accordingly. Especially if I believed that he/she was carrying a gun.

Suppose I walk into a bar and start a fight with the biggest baddest biker I see. And he starts winning. Am I now allowed to shoot him because at this instant I'm afraid for my life? Never mind that I started the fight?

Re:Zimmerman?

[DutchUncle]

"I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire. Though maybe if he had met someone as stupid as Palin . . .

Re:Zimmerman?

[Dishevel]

I can also "Say" that Trayvon was casing places to rob after getting his "Dope taste better" stuff from 7-11. The evidence has Trayvon attacking Zimmerman, breaking his nose and pounding his head into the concrete while on top of him.

Yup. That sure is him just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

His guilt is pretty fucking obvious, Florida law notwithstanding.

Fun experiment: change the legal-but-dangerous situation ('male following a suspicious person' to 'female daring to go out after dark without a large group of friends') and the consequence ('violent assault' to 'sexual assault'). How does your opinion change? If it does, why?

Re:Zimmerman?

[bfandreas]

That is a matter of perception. Both are cause celebrees and as such will get much more attention. That is a different matter.
The real matter is that this is a pattern. And the pattern is lack of self-restraint while online. And that is a matter beyond specific events or specific people. And that is the matter that should be discussed.

Some argue that the general anonymity on the internet is what causes this lack of restraint. I would argue that while it is not the immediate cause it does facilitate unreflected behaviour. But that is not enough reason to give up our anonymity since it has its uses. I would put forward the hypothesis that egregious utterings are the product of a weak and inexperienced will and that since it is so omnipresent there propably is not much to be done about it. Although the thought of punitive action against these knob-ends in form of 20 lashings on their naked knob-ends does have its attraction. On the other hand enfocring community service might teach them some restraint without damaging their futures. The perpetrators mostly are young men and they should grow out of it once they have assumed some responsibilty and gone through the school of hard knocks that usually follows. No need to damage them any further than by removing dogs droppings and litterings for a couple of fortnights. Most of them would go blubbing to their mommies if they even had to remotely face the multi-syllabic ire they just have unleased onto themselves.

The streets would be much cleaner, too. Propably on multiple levels.


Note to self: No more Yes, Minister marathon sessions for you, bubba.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Jawnn]

No one deserves to die, or to be made to fear that they might die, just because they are stupid. Even if they are as stupid as Sarah Palin.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with the sentiment (people who threaten bodily harm against others should be prosecuted for it), I can't agree with the message (humiliating people as a form of criminal punishment is, to be blunt, fucking stupid, speaking ill of the dead should not be grounds for jailtime, and in no sane world should the police break your nose over attempting to report a crime, and if it does happen, it is not the model for an ideal world). So you're almost there, you just have to take care of that whole being fucking crazy thing.

Re:Zimmerman?

[shutdown -p now]

The national media didnt "imply" his guilt by doing anything other than report the sequence of events

... while fudging them, by e.g. omitting the question from the 911 operator asking for Trayvon's race, but broadcasting Zimmerman's answer ("he looks black"), to make him look like a racist. And don't even get me started on how they plastered the front pages with a photo of Trayvon as a kid, implying that it's what he looked like when he died. Ironically, we have found out that it actually skewed the witnesses' testimony, since when one of them said that Zimmerman was on top of Martin, and defense asked how she knew, she said that "big guy was on top" - and then, after getting grilled about it, it came up that her assessment of which guy was big was based on that kid photo of Martin (in reality, he was the bigger one).

So yeah, it was totally unbiased reporting all around.

Re:Zimmerman?

[shutdown -p now]

It really depends on what exactly "starting a fight" constituted. Yes, provocation can prevent you from claiming self-defense later, but it would also need to be proved (i.e. once you claim self-defense, the prosecution will have to prove that you are not entitled to it because you provoked the attack).

In this particular case, they didn't even bother, because merely following someone around does not constitute provocation, and that's pretty much all that we know for sure about what happened that night. It could be that Zimmerman has stopped Martin and perhaps even verbally insulted him, but there's no witnesses to that. All we know is that Zimmerman was on the back, with bruises consistent with being beaten by a guy on top of him, while Martin only has a single gunshot wound that is, again, consistent with being shot from below.

There are also some irregularities - e.g. the timing of Martin's walk as deconstructed from his call logs seems to be inconsistent if he was just trying to head straight home (he should have been there earlier), but would be more consistent with him waiting to ambush Zimmerman after he remarked to his gf that he's followed by that "creepy-ass cracker". Again, this is all circumstantial evidence, but so far I'd say that the balance of probabilities is in favor of Zimmerman's story.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Oligonicella]

I notice you used the word 'chase'. At no time did George chase the guy. Second point, George did not start the fight, he was jumped. So, apparently your reasoned response to someone following you - especially if you believed he/she was carrying a gun - is to jump them and start beating on them and hope like hell they don't pull and use the gun you especially believe them to be carrying.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Oligonicella]

"And no matter what you say - Trayvon was still an innocent young man who was doing nothing illegal at the time."

Other than jumping George and attempting to cave the back of his head in by repeatedly slamming it onto concrete you mean?

"If he didn't feel big and safe with his gun and the "stand your ground" laws behind him then Trayvon would still be alive and Mr. Zimmerman wouldn't be getting death threats."

No, Trayvon would still be alive if he did not start the altercation.

Re:Zimmerman?

[dwye]

Hispanics are NOT white on government forms. In fact, hypothetical whites who are pure Visigoth whose ancestors moved from Spain to Latin America would not be able to call themselves "white" on most forms that I have seen because what was once called "Caucasian" is actually described as "Non-Hispanic White" on those forms. Just to make it more silly, a Spaniard would be a Non-Hispanic White unless he had a lot of Sub-Saharan African ancestry (that was not Boer or English colonial) and could "pass".

Re:Zimmerman?

[dwye]

If the biker starts beating your head against a surface so that you think that you might die, even if subsequent testing proves that the (say) wall will give before your head, yes, you can legally shoot him. If he is merely ahead on points as determined by the Marquis Of Queensbury Rules, no.

Sorry, but self defense doesn't apply to people who start the fight only if they start it by trying to kill their opponent. If Zimmerman had brandished his gun and Martin pulled one and shot him, Martin would have been found Not Guilty, too.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Dishevel]

The evidence actually had Zimmerman stopping the pursuit and heading back to the truck at the time of the altercation. That was the testimony and there was some evidence to back it up and none to disprove it. So with that in mind. You story would be more like ...

You pissed me off. Then you left. I came after you because you pissed me off and attacked you. You then shot me.

Again. I do not know everything that happened. I do know that with the evidence that was presented that there is no proof of criminal activity on Zimmermans part. This was not a racial case. Certain people just wanted it to be one.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a clever way of saying you don't deserve to die. Quite clever!

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

You linked a troll site created by the hate-fueled M. Malkin, that organizes nitwits to go derp on Twitter.

Except, of course, that it's the leftists who are hate-fueled and actually putting private citizens (Zimmerman, the family he helped when their car wrecked, and the jurors) into hiding, and Twitchy is simply documenting these facts.

Re:Zimmerman?

[RazzleFrog]

You have no evidence to support who started the fight. All we know is that George was losing.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can also "Say" that Trayvon was casing places to rob after getting his "Dope taste better" stuff from 7-11.
The evidence has Trayvon attacking Zimmerman, breaking his nose and pounding his head into the concrete while on top of him.

Yup. That sure is him just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

How much evidence shows Zimmerman recovering from such a savage head-beating to be able to level his pistol and fire a lethal shot into Martin without any sort of defensive move by Martin? Never mind that Zimmerman had no such "evidence" of Martin's rampant drug use or his felonious ways to go on that you did, prior to his confronting the boy while walking down the street and shooting him to death (which Zimmerman readily admits to.) Clearly Martin had it in his mind that he was going to kill the next cracker he came across. Case closed.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

The national news media did not imply his guilt, except specifically by implying his guilt. Deep.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Dishevel]

My point was that once we no longer need evidence we can "Say" whatever we want.

That is what is happening with this case.

They are using a case that never claimed a "Stand your ground" defense to take down "Stand your ground" laws.

They have turned a half Mexican that spent his down money to mentor black youths into a racist.

They have Zimmerman into a demon and Trayvon into a baby angel.

This case has nothing to do with the facts.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

So getting out of a car and walking down a street to a T-intersection to see where someone is going then turning around to go back to the car is "chasing"?

So you would go out of your way to attack someone who was "chasing" you after you had already gotten away? And you would still do so when you "think" that he/she was carrying a gun?

So the act of following constitues as starting a fight and gives you legal right to physically assault the person following you and start bashing his/her head into the concrete?

And to your last question. No, not unless the state supported "Stand Your Ground" and you could prove that you were trying to get away or give up while the other person was still coming after you. In Zimmerman's case, "Stand Your Ground", had absolutely nothing to do with it. Zimmerman was not (according to his story) the one who started the PHYSICAL altercation. Zimmerman had every legal right to defend himself with lethal force the second Martin straddled him and began pounding his head into the concrete.

Since the prosecution could not prove otherwise with physical evidence and witnesses, he was acquitted. Try to at least wrap your head around a couple of the concepts above and "innocent until proven guilty" before you start erecting ridiculous straw mans next time.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

I did find it particularly offensive that they could not find any photo of Martin older than about fourteen.

Re:Zimmerman?

[interkin3tic]

I suspect that many people signing this petition will be brits while the lynch mob twitterers are mostly american.

Re:Zimmerman?

[RazzleFrog]

You know I think it's wrong to demonize George Zimmerman but people need to be held accountable for their actions. Neighborhood watch doesn't make you a mini-cop. He felt that Trayvon wasn't suspicious looking and called 911. He should have gone home and been done with it. Unfortunately, he felt that the police weren't doing their job and that he needed to take the law into his own hands. Even without any other details he is already in the wrong.

After that we have no real evidence of what happened. We know he sustained injuries but we don't know exactly what lead up to them. That is why it would have been very hard to get a conviction in a criminal court.

That doesn't change the fact, though, that George Zimmerman made some very bad choices that led to an innocent young man dying.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Archangel Michael]

It is necessary because some people of both Liberal and Conservative persuasions create laws that ostensibly designed to protect their side, until which time it becomes clear that it would benefit both sides, at which point they cry foul. Hypocrissy.

In this case, people want to defend a Liberal Feminist because she received death threats, but these very same people are okay with all the hatred and vitriol spewed at Sara Palin, including death threats, not only to her, but her children.

http://therightscoop.com/sarah-palin-gets-twitter-death-threats/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/sarah-palin-bristol-palin-death-threats-dancing-with-the-stars-all-stars_n_1954253.html

People act like this kind of stuff never happens, and we need a law against it. Until it impacts them.

Re:Zimmerman?

[ttucker]

I'd consider that I was being "hunted down" . . . and react accordingly. Especially if I believed that he/she was carrying a gun.

What would be a prudent reaction at this time? Personally, if I thought somebody was looking to shoot me, I would tend to go somewhere else. The last thing I would think was a good idea would be to start a fist fight. There are old expressions about bringing a lesser weapon to a gunfight, particularly that it is unwise. Perhaps they carry a certain wisdom.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

But there is consistent circumstantial evidence that supports Zimmermans testimony including time of 911 call and time of text messages from Martin's phone.

I'm also more inclined to believe Zimmermans story due to the lack of of physical evidence on Martin's body for taking any physical hits. Unless of course you think Martin is the black equivalent of Chuck Norris and could come out of a fight that he didn't start unscathed.

Re:Zimmerman?

[ttucker]

Anonymity also allows someone to further their own wills by entirely fabricating entire interactions between several individuals. In this case, whether the threats are real or not, this person's claims are furthered, even vindicated, by these supposed unpleasant comments.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Zak3056]

The finding was "Not Guilty" which is very different from "Innocent". The jury decided that there was not enough evidence provided to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether George Zimmerman committed 2nd degree murder or the lesser charge of manslaughter.

In a system designed such that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, how is there any difference between "innocent" and "not guilty?" It's not like juries have a box on their form that says "innocent," so even if it exists, exactly how is this special status you speak of supposed to attach?

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also no "white" race or "black" race. From Wikipedia "Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance: all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens and subspecies, homo sapiens sapiens." Racism will not be eradicated before ending the whole package of lies that is "race." As far as social percepetions go, it might help to have fewer self-appointed arbiters of who is this but not the other. Even a fucking parrot can tell if a block is "red" or "blue". Quit being as stupid as a fucking parrot.

Re:Zimmerman?

[XcepticZP]

You could say the same of Trayvon. The only reason George's "motives" and "choices" are being blamed and criticized is because he survived. Trayvon made equally bad choices, and all the evidence pointed to him being the one that physically assaulted a man. Following someone around a neighbourhood, and calling the cops on them, are legal actions that do not violate a person's safety. Assault, however, is.

I don't know about you, but for me "choices" and "motives" go out the window if me or my loved ones' life is in danger. To say that somehow George was not justified in defending himself AFTER the fight broke out and he was about to probably be killed, is pure asinine drama-baiting.

The real sad part about all this is that people are fast becoming scared to protect themselves. It's been an ongoing and disturbing trend. At the end of the day, that's just how they'd like you. They want you scared, scared and defenseless. Because they know that now they are magically the only ones that are allowed to protect you without fear of demonization by the public, or criminal persecution by the state.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

The AC complained about harassment

No, I complained about double-standards. Where was the push to get Twitter to do something about threats against Zimmerman?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever even met him? The man was accused of something and found not guilty, but his guilt was implied by the nation news media... so you hate that asshole? Perhaps it is time to grow a spine, and maybe even a brain to attach to the end of it.

What the fuck, by Zimmerman's own admissions, he was an asshole. He regularly stalked kids and called the police on him, by his own admissions. He just wasn't a racist asshole, because he talked white and Hispanic kids too.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

He was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In fact, if you look at the ACTUAL timeline of ACTUAL events, without ascribing ANY motives to any of them, it becomes clear that there were several minutes from the time where Zimmerman got out of his truck and the time he hung up with police, and several more minutes until the 911 calls came in and the shot was heard being fired on one of them. Trayvon was shot approximately 70 yards from his home. At the point - several minutes before Martin was shot - where Zimmerman says to police "he's cutting between the buildings," he was maybe 100 yards from his home. In what world does a healthy 17 year old male take 5 minutes to cover 100 yards?

If you ask me, it seems clear that Trayvon was offended that somebody was dogging him, so he decided to turn around and start shit with someone, rather than going home and calling the police and letting them deal with the "creepy ass cracker." This is completely in line with typical young male behavior: quick to take offense at something they feel is unfair to them, and quick to confront and escalate a situation. There's a reason teenage boys get in disproportionately more fights than other demographics. I think Trayvon doubled back, confronted ZImmerman, started shit with him, and ended up shot because he didn't count on the guy he started shit with having a guy on him.

It's tragic, and it was avoidable if both of them had made different decisions that night. But the idea that Zimmerman was running around the neighborhood like a special ops commando with his gun out looking for any excuse to use it on someone requires us to ignore the actual timeline of events (in which Trayvon had plenty of time to get home safely, and obviously must have doubled back to confront Zimmerman), and the damage done to Zimmerman's face & head, which suggests that Trayvon was assaulting Zimmerman at the time he was shot. He wasn't an innocent bystander, he went back looking for an altercation.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

In our Brave New Liberal Relativist World, the difference is whether or not you agree with the verdict, of course.

If someone agrees with the 'not guilty' verdict, then the person is 'innocent' (and incidentally, probably a victim of racial profiling by a government agency.)

If someone disagrees with the 'not guilty' verdict, then the person is 'Not Guilty' (and incidentally, probably only got off because of racism.)

Sadly, I'm only about 10% joking. Let's be honest, in many peoples' minds, the fact that a gun was involved automatically makes the defendant guilty - "he's a wannabe cop," "he was running around trying to be a big tough guy with a gun," "he was trying to be a big shot";

the fact that the gun was used to shoot a young black man is doubly damning - "he was racially profiling that kid," "the kid was completely innocent, murdered in cold blood."

Never mind the 5-6 minute gap from Zimmerman reporting that he lost sight of Martin - less than 100 yards from Martin's home - and the sound of the gunshot. Never mind the fact that 17 year old boys regularly start fights because they think their "manhood" or their "honor" has been tread on somehow. Never mind the fact that all of the evidence presented at the trial seems to support Zimmerman's version of events.

Nope, all of that doesn't matter. All the cognoscenti had to hear was, "white man shoots black teen, claims self defense," to construct a "guilty" verdict in their mind.

Re:Zimmerman?

[gmhowell]

The jury doesn't need to 'find' him innocent. His innocence is presumed by the American legal system unless and until there is a finding of 'guilty'.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

nobody has the right to kill anybody with premeditation.

Except Obama?

Re:Zimmerman?

[DutchUncle]

At no time did George chase the guy. Second point, George did not start the fight, he was jumped.

We don't know the first, or especially what it looked like from the other perspective. And we don't know the second, either. As for the third, well, no, I was taught by large men in green uniforms to hide first until I could find a strategic advantage. It was a long time ago, but it's the sort of training that comes back on you, sometimes as nightmares.

Re:Zimmerman?

[DutchUncle]

If Zimmerman had brandished his gun and Martin pulled one and shot him, Martin would have been found Not Guilty, too.

I really, truly wish that I believed this.

Re:Zimmerman?

[DutchUncle]

You story would be more like ...

You pissed me off. Then you left. I came after you because you pissed me off and attacked you. You then shot me.

Or maybe like . . . I hid while you were looking for me with a gun in your hand. Then when you turned to look the other way, I took strategic advantage and tried to knock you out before you shot me (because I was in fear for my life that you were hunting me).

"Stand your ground" makes sense when you're in your home and it's invaded, or you're in a store and a robber comes in. Not when both people are out on open land, and not when one has been following the other in a manner that would cause suspicion in the one followed. This ENTIRE INCIDENT should NEVER HAVE HAPPENED, and the one who made it happen was Zimmerman.

Re:Zimmerman?

[DutchUncle]

As I replied to another post: Yes. Hide first. Maybe look for a stick or fencepost to hit with. But on desperate ground, fight.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Back to the story line. Womens right groups aren't about making sure women are equal, like they were when they started. Now they look for anything to bitch and moan about, by no means am I saying it is all rainbows and butterflies when it comes to internet racism or sexism not existing . But how many of these Tweets are being sarcastic, and how many were just people trying to draw attention to themselves.

The women or woman that started this campaign for women to be featured on a banknotes should have known she was going to receive this type of attention on the via internet. What I found funny over the whole thing is how many people objected to a woman being featured on a banknote, which are a minority when it comes to the internet/tweeter idiots. And I can guarantee that no matter what you do, as we have seen on /. itself, anything that someone tries to push for or create gets put down, and you see a majority of users abuse the person that is trying to get an opinion, or support.

That is everywhere, so to say Twitter should be one of the sites held accountable for allowing free speech, knowing that if you use the internet no matter which site you use to gain support you are going to have knuckleheads that decide to show how the human race has yet to advance beyond a caveman's lack of thought. I still surprising that the press, and others have yet to run in-depth, or continually run stories over the internet, racism and sexism running wild.

Re:Zimmerman?

[dwye]

If Zimmerman had brandished his gun and Martin pulled one and shot him, Martin would have been found Not Guilty, too.

I really, truly wish that I believed this.

Ask Ron Goldman's and Nicole Brown Simpson's families if a black man can get a Not Guilty verdict in America.

Re:Zimmerman?

[bfandreas]

I would put to you that this is quit unlikely in this case. No matter how far one would take his -or her in this case- virtual and entirely artificial persona created in order to perpetrate a potentially criminal offence one would find it increasingly difficult to have said artificial persona be nicked as a 21 year old male tosspot.
They have cuffed one of those potty mouths. Just yesterday. And they hope to reunite him with his friends quite soon. One way or the other. And in this case I do applaud the rozzers because it is my firm belief that these knob-ends do need slapping down.

But I am quite certain that people have created fake disputes with themselves. Even sent themselves threatening notes. Which would make for a rather schizophrenic day in court. Should be a laff.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Dishevel]

"Stand your ground" makes sense when you're in your home and it's invaded, or you're in a store and a robber comes in. Not when both people are out on open land, and not when one has been following the other in a manner that would cause suspicion in the one followed. This ENTIRE INCIDENT should NEVER HAVE HAPPENED, and the one who made it happen was Zimmerman.

Yay.

Another person who will tell me all about how it should be while having the facts all wrong.

Yes. I know they are all wrong because you got them from NBC.

Stand You Ground Laws Were NEVER A Part of This Case!

Not once was it hinted at as a defense. Never. Not looked at by the Defense or the prosecution or the judge. The jury never heard an argument about it. Not One Time.

You can only get that from the MSM. The same people who edited the 911 tapes to make Zimmerman appear to be profiling.

Now that you know that you were lied to I bet you still will not look up the actual facts of the case. Even if you do and find them to be different I am thinking that it will not change your mind. Even with the facts completely different from what you assumed them to be your conclusion will not suffer in the least.

Idiot

Re:Zimmerman?

[kaatochacha]

Why would americans even care?

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem -- It's illegal to go in and start a fight.

It's not illegal to keep an eye on someone in your neighborhood.

If you feel you should attack them for following you, then you might just end up dead. The right to defend one's self is basic and fundamental. The responsibility to be aware of our surroundings, including reporting suspicious activity in a neighborhood with a history of crime problems belongs to every citizen.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Don't be a thug.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Trayvon was a full four inches taller than Zimmerman.

Re:Zimmerman?

[richieb]

More the reason not to follow him, especially after handing off to police.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill the stupid people so they don't breed, or we'll all become stupid and kill ourselves anyway... So, Twitter just needs to release a free brain implant, and if it determines that you're a fucking twit, it gives you a friendly brain aneurysm.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume a ban on Twitter death threats would apply to everybody, even oppressed powerless groups like middle-class men.

Re:Zimmerman?

[ttucker]

Sometimes when I read YouTube video comments and realize that is likely about the average person in the world, it makes me a little scared to leave my house.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to Reddit with your other MRA friends.

Re:Zimmerman?

[DutchUncle]

You know, I was all ready to go start looking things up . . . and you had to end off with an insult for no particular reason. This suggests to me that your position comes from equally (if opposite) bias. I didn't claim *either* person was an angel; I said: This ENTIRE INCIDENT should NEVER HAVE HAPPENED. Zimmerman started out in a car, which by itself is a position of power and a weapon; he CHOSE to get out of the car and chase someone down to confront on foot; I maintain that such action caused a confrontation that need not have happened at all.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

She isn't stupid. She is venal, ambitious, ignorant and clever.

She should be feared and loathed.

If only we still had reporters in this country who could report on actual news like we had many years ago, you might know that.

Oops. Guess I started channeling Mr Old and Cranky there.

P.S. She is also an asshole. But she looks great in a dress.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Occams]

I think that the answer to unacceptable abuse and threats on social media is to properly identify the users. People do not behave like that if their identity is known and they face normal existing accountability. We have a right to free speech, but not to anonymous free speech.

Re:Zimmerman?

[Dishevel]

I do not care that your felt insulted. Your feelings on the case matter not at all. You have no facts and the ones you think you have never existed. Period.

Really?

[ArcadeMan]

There's still cavemen in 2013?

I think the current Slashdot quote is appropriate:
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. -- Albert Einstein

Re:Really?

[newcastlejon]

I think the current Slashdot quote is appropriate: Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. -- Albert Einstein

I prefer this one (possibly stolen and probably misquoted from some slashdotter's sig):
Imagine how smart the average person is. Now realise that half of all people are dumber than that.
s/smart/enlightened.

Re:Really?

[dyingtolive]

I can only assume that their outrage was not based upon it being a woman, but it being Jane Austen.

Re:Really?

[cusco]

That's from George Carlin. I occasionally get notes from pedants pointing out that 'mean' would be more appropriate than 'average', but if you think about delivering the line to 1,500 people (a goodly percentage of them drunk and/or stoned) 'average' is probably easiest for the majority to understand.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not so sure. The criticisms came in the form of threats of murder and rape. I doubt the people slinging the mud know who Jane Austen was.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can only assume that their outrage was not based upon it being a woman, but it being Jane Austen.

Hm, yeah, that sadly IS more feasible, given this is the internet. The mere existence of an author someone doesn't like all that much is generally considered a justified cause for a shitstorm of vile hatred and death threats against anyone who happens to like said author. Same goes with anyone saying anything less-than-perfect about someone's favoritest author in the whole wide world ever, of course.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stuff like intelligence is mostly on a bell curve so when applied to the general population the mean and the average will be the same for all intents and purposes.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You misspelled "intensive porpoises".
You also used it incorrectly in this context.

Re:Really?

[misexistentialist]

Indeed, the guys with clubs and metal projectiles that come after you for "tweeting"

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why Twitter needs to increase censorship to prevent someone's feeling from getting hurt. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez

Oops, I guess that should be:

If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Either way you look at it, hyphens just can't handle the heat.

Re:Really?

[rs79]

I figured that out one day and assumed anybody who ever looked at a gaussian curve of IQ thought the same thing. Draw a line down the middle. The half on the left are not even of average intelligence.

Now make a small circle on the right most bit. You are here. Next time you think "Fuck, is everyone stupid?!?" remember this.

Re:Really?

[Seumas]

When I argue mean versus average, I can never tell which half of the IQ population I am on. :)

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cavepeople.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant "intensive purposes".

*breathes through the mouth*

Re:Really?

[bfandreas]

I'm not so sure. The criticisms came in the form of threats of murder and rape. I doubt the people slinging the mud know who Jane Austen was.

I also doubt this is a rabid mob of Bronte-sisters fanbois.
If I wanted to be crass and idiotic I would resort to applying a quote that has been attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt:
Women are like tea bags. You never know how strong they are until you put them in hot water.

This is a crass and idiotic statement because it applies to men and women equally. So break out the popcorn and watch how the idotic seemingly adolescent 21 year old guy that got nicked will be tearfully pleading for mercy in front of a court while she who he had marked out as his victim simply stares him down. That pretty much makes my case.
How is that for hot water?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a truly pedantic person would argue for 'median'.

Re:Really?

[operagost]

After all, unless something has changed drastically recently the Sovereign is female.

Re:Really?

[newcastlejon]

See? I told you I'd probably get the quote wrong. I suggest you refer those pedants to Carlin; he'll certainly listen to criticism. (He won't change his act, but that's hardly a change.)

Re:Really?

[bfandreas]

There's still cavemen in 2013?

I think the current Slashdot quote is appropriate: Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. -- Albert Einstein

This particular epithet doesn't quite aply to the Zimmerman/Martin case. There is also quite some nastyness flung around in that hairy old chestnut. This is not Twitter. The Slashdot comment system allows for a bit more eloquence than the mere flinging around of one-liners.

So let me counter your Einstein with an apocryphal Eleanor Roosevelt:
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
This also only applies to this case and not to other victims of cyber-mobs who invoke less sympathy because they in all likelyhood might be scumbags. Yet the core issue is the same.

I really despise the unreflected ricocheting of other peoples words in the vain hope that some of their fame attaches to the flinger.
Clip and compile, and brew
From the leavings of others your ragout,
Of rhetoric, pump from your embers
A few poor sparks that nobody remembers!
That is literally forgettable shit.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your pedants are wrong--or perhaps you misquoted.
It's median, not mean.

Re:Really?

[gmhowell]

See? I told you I'd probably get the quote wrong. I suggest you refer those pedants to Carlin; he'll certainly listen to criticism. (He won't change his act, but that's hardly a change.)

Gonna be real hard for Carlin to change his act, even if you present a compelling argument.

Re:Really?

[Dominare]

I suggest you refer those pedants to Carlin; he'll certainly listen to criticism.

I doubt it, he's been dead for five years.

Re:Really?

[rioki]

That is assuming you actually are on the right hand side. Also. it is very unlikely that you are more than two sigma above the median.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mean and average are the same thing. You're thinking of the median.

What's the big deal

[SleazyRidr]

Why would you abuse someone for trying to get a woman on a banknote? I can't comment for the UK, but in Australia we've had the Queen on a note since forever, and Edith Cowan on the $50 since the 90s. Some people need to realise that it isn't 1678 any more.

Re:What's the big deal

[AmiMoJo]

Because idiots think it's some kind of feminazi conspiracy to force men off bank notes and turn everything into an act of sexual harassment. Just wait, even in these very comments there will be people telling her she has no right not to be threatened with rape and if she can't handle trolls on Twitter she should get off the internet.

For what it's worth we have the Queen too, but she doesn't really count since she isn't there on merit. When they decided to change the only note with a woman on the other side there was some concern that if a man was picked there would be none left.

Re:What's the big deal

[deains]

TBH I think the issue about the bank notes themselves is fairly peripheral to all this. The "people" (for want of a better word) sending these abusive tweets probably couldn't care less about who's on the back of their money, they just simply hate women and so will take any opportunity to threaten, belittle and abuse them anonymously. This article in the Telegraph kinda gives some insight: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10208418/Twitter-abuse-What-women-hating-trolls-really-believe.html

Re:What's the big deal

[arth1]

Last I checked, the British had a woman on all banknotes and coins.

Re:What's the big deal

[OzPeter]

Edith Cowan on the $50 since the 90s.

You need to look at some smaller notes

Re:What's the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to guess it's the choice of person. I like Jane Austen's work well enough, but her biggest appeal/claim to fame isn't based so much on quality or message as it is playing to her gender. That's why, for instance, my mom watches Jane Austen movies dozens of times per year. Certainly, even though I think he's done brilliant work, I'd be a bit embarrassed if we switched the $10 bill to Louis C.K.

Re:What's the big deal

[Alioth]

Well the Queen is on the front of all the Bank of England notes, and Elizabeth Fry is on the back of the 5 pound note. What I don't understand is why there wasn't any controversy about Adam Smith being on the back of the 20 pound note given he is the darling of the right wing and Scottish to boot.

Re:What's the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

The people are called MENS RIGHTS ACTIVISTS. Instead of trying to achieve fairness they seek to roll back the clock.

They also want to limit the legal definition of consent for sex so that they can rape women who are drunk. If you're an MRA you will be very angry I said that, but it is consistent with MRAs that they argue that consent is too complicated or they aren't rapists because they were totally drunk too. MRAs do not agree with the current legal standard for consent, and therefore want to make a large swath of RAPE legal by making consent more "loose". If you don't agree with the current standard for consent it means you're arguing that you should be able to RAPE people under our current laws.

If MRAs would just focus on issues like family court and being forced to be macho the rest of the civilized world wouldn't have a problem with them. Instead they put forth a campaign of mysogny and argue to make what is legally rape now into not rape.

Re:What's the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right that the people sending these abusive tweets couldn't care less about who's on their money. They're trolls. They do it to get a reaction, and that lady at the Telegraph, crowing about "shining a torch on the underside of the internet", does nothing but give them the attention they crave. The more you "shame" them, the more will crawl out of the woodwork, because they think you're hilarious.

Re:What's the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the hilarious irony is that they've given credit to the "feminazi agenda" by showing how women still get singled out for being women, despite it being 2013.

Re:What's the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yeah, Hamilton was pretty important! Switch the $20 to Louis C. K.; Jackson was an asshole.

Re:What's the big deal

[Seumas]

I don't know that I agree. Initially, it may seem like that, but I think it is more about tradition. Sure, there will always be some people upset any time consideration is given to someone who is black or female or gay or something, but I think the majority of people upset about things like this are angry over a thing simply being changed *period*.

At any rate, the "women, amiright?!" aspect of this isn't relevant.

Re:What's the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd put money on very few of the people involved being "MEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS".

Re:What's the big deal

[intermodal]

I don't agree with abuse, but I'd certainly oppose putting Jane Austen on currency simply because I don't care for her novels. I'd rather see any number of other authors than Jane Austen.

Re:What's the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

and turn everything into an act of sexual harassment

Or an act of (certain, specific manifestations of) racism.
Or an act of anti-muslim hatred.
Or an act of climate change denial.

All must conform.

Re:What's the big deal

[Seumas]

Funny, because I think the whole gender thing is completely irrelevant, also. The issue is about censorship and when something crosses the line into illegality. Especially online, where something written may not have the same context or implications of something physically written in real life. I mean, seriously, who among us has not been insulted or even threatened many times on the internet in the last couple of decades? It doesn't matter what your skin color, gender, sexuality, religion, nationality, or anything else is. I'm a middle aged white male and I've been threatened for my lack of religion. I've been threatened for banning someone from my website. I've had people show up at my fucking DOORSTEP. So what?

Even the trolls you're talking about have little to do with gender. The majority of those trolls troll wherever there is trolling to be done. It isn't like they have some specific agenda to go out there and talk shit to or about just women (and it seems weird calling it "trolls" once you're talking about something worth dealing with criminally -- trolls are people who talk shit and give you a hard time and piss you off; not wage serious and legitimate threats against your life).

The problem is, everyone is going to get so bogged down in "sexism durpy durp!" that the censorship implications will go by the wayside. (And no, I'm not saying that you should have the right to seriously threaten someone's life with a real and plausible threat of harm -- I'm talking about the censorship implications when things are so broadly applied with little intelligence or consideration).

Re:What's the big deal

[MysteriousPreacher]

couldn't care less

Jesus H Christ! Someone actually got this right, instead of writing "I could care less", or it's bastard cousin "I could give a damn".

Sorry to interrupt. Just needed to get that out.

Re:What's the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

"They" do this, "they" advocate rape; sweeping generalisations. I'm not an MRA, but the way you describe them is akin to the description of feminists and Jews, communists, blacks from populist movements of stereotyping. They're a conducive movement, all alike, all waiting to rape and pillage the second their agenda takes hold and rape is legalized. They're not, the movement is stupid, but you shouldn't criticise it with hyperbole or stereotypes because it obfuscates the message.

There isn't even any evidence a men's rights movement is claiming the attack, you're jumping to conclusions. Even if there was, would everyone jump up in arms against all Muslims if one Muslim happened to be caught robbing a bank? Does it even matter who was responsible for this attack, can't we unite against not threating to rape or rob banks instead of slinging mud at anyone who looks like part of a demonized (rightly or otherwise) group?

Re:What's the big deal

[spire3661]

Putting a WRITER on bank notes is weird. Stamps fine, but money should have Statesmen on them.

Re:What's the big deal

[spire3661]

STATESMEN and STATESWOMEN should be on bank notes, not artists.

Re:What's the big deal

[xaxa]

couldn't care less

Jesus H Christ! Someone actually got this right, instead of writing "I could care less", or it's bastard cousin "I could give a damn".

Sorry to interrupt. Just needed to get that out.

99% of British people will say "couldn't". "I could care less" is an Americanism (Americanizm?).

Re:What's the big deal

[xaxa]

Putting a WRITER on bank notes is weird. Stamps fine, but money should have Statesmen on them.

The queen is on the other side. The current £10 note has Charles Darwin on it, but the figure is replaced every 10 years or so.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/current/default.aspx

Re:What's the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't agree with the current standard for consent it means you're arguing that you should be able to RAPE people under our current laws.

Well... yes, by definition. But if the laws are bad, then this is the right thing to do.

(I'm not taking a position either way on these particular laws: I have no idea what the consent laws say in my jurisdiction, let alone yours (you didn't even state where that was). I'm just pointing out that, just because the law says something is illegal doesn't necessarily mean the thing is wrong, and arguing that the law should be changed doesn't necessarily mean that you're arguing that something bad should be made legal.)

Re:What's the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you abuse someone for trying to get a woman on a banknote?

Because that woman was Jane Austen. Only a rabid anti-feminist could think of putting her on a banknote. Her books exude a patriarchistic society order where women bow under the grace of superior men, aiming to serve, placate, and rise through marriage. Something which gets tiring after reading "Pride and Prejudice" and "Emma": that's when one should stop.

Constrast this with Emily Brontë's "Wuthering Heights" which could not care less about society, and where the male-favoring heritage laws are not part of a wonderful world order but are shamelessly exploited in order to create grave injustice.

Now one can't really read more than one book from each of the Brontë sisters without getting bored. In the case of Emily, simply because there is only one and one would actually have hoped for more from the same source. That one book beats the whole produce of Austen, however, and it is much more suitable for feminist admiration.

Re:What's the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

it's bastard cousin

Its, not it's.

Re:What's the big deal

[blackm0k]

Ditching Darwin for Austen seems a little sad, though Charles has had a good run. Removing Smith in favour of Austen, on the other, just seems like a scenario with no downside... Apart from for the woman campaigning to get Austen on the banknotes in the first place, of course, who gets threatened just for trying to get a critically renowned author some recognition.

Re:What's the big deal

[bancho]

For what it's worth we have the Queen too, but she doesn't really count since she isn't there on merit.

I agree with you, but laughed hard at the thought of (modern day) royalty being "merit based". I understand what you meant though so carry on.

Re:What's the big deal

[Darinbob]

Unless of course it's a man, in which case there have been plenty of non statesmen on the bank notes.
No one sane threatens to kill or rape someone merely for advocating a writer on a bank note.

Re:What's the big deal

[Darinbob]

Well, I guess countless countries disagree with this because it's been a long and widespread practice.

Re:What's the big deal

[spire3661]

I think you are very wrong about your statement about no 'sane person' threatens to kill or rape in this particular manner. In fact i would say the vast majority of those comments are from legally sane people when correlated with the occurrence of insanity among the population. That is the problem, its an inherent human trait. Im not trying to defend these intellectual midgets, im just pointing out it doesnt take a medical malady to cause a human to spew bile at another. It is quite sane behavior. Impolite and assholish to the point of possibly being a crime, but sane.

Re:What's the big deal

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I've always understood it to be "couldn't care less". I assume, in some areas of the US, the accent made it hard to enunciate the "n't" part and it was dropped in those parts of the US in the 1960s. Possibly due to someone mishearing the saying and then perpetuating the incorrect form in text.

Re:What's the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

I always preferred "I could care less" because in my own inner monologue it's finished as ".. but I don't" or ".. but not much less." and just assumed that's what it meant. It's so snarky. To say you couldn't care less is dismissive. You haven't given it any thought. To say you COULD care less but you still won't do anything means you have thought this over, you have weighed the options, yet the outcome is.. less than favorable.

Re:What's the big deal

[xaxa]

To say you couldn't care less is dismissive.

That's exactly the point of the expression as usually used in British English. The thing isn't even worth thinking about.

Re:What's the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

The censorship implications are - as far as I can tell - entirely intentional. The woman behind this petition is best buddies with a particularly lovely, transphobic shitheel who believes that trans people exist solely to attack her precious femaleness, repeatedly outs and harasses trans women (we're talking names, addresses, places of employment, the works), and thinks that anyone who objects to this is harassing her by complaining about it.

Naturally said shithell 100% supports this petition, and why wouldn't she? After all, this petition is carefully worded to give her and her chums an out: "Women standing up to abuse should not fear having their accounts cancelled because Twitter fail to see the issue at hand. The report abuse button needs to be accompanied by Twitter reviewing the T&C on abusive behaviour to reflect an awareness of the complexity of violence against women, and the multiple oppressions women face." For those who don't speak their particular brand of feminist, what that means is that women who send death threats get away with it so long as they're fighting for women's rights by doing it. Brennan considers harassing trans people to fall under this, and she's very effective in organising write-in campaigns which convince sites this is an important part of women's rights. It helps that essentially no feminists write in to contradict her.

Of course, she'd be just as capable of organising campaigns to mass abuse report trans people and their allies. I've been seeing concerns from people on Twitter about this all day.

Re:What's the big deal

[MrNemesis]

Can't comment on the rest of the commonwealth, but aside from ER here in the UK we had Florence Nightingale on a tenner throughout my childhood.

Fun geeky factoid: the lady with the lamp was so successful with her hospital reform because she was immensely good at presenting statistics visually and was able to demonstrate how a little extra spent on better preventative medicine and sanitation would save much more money in the long term, both in terms of military hospitals and sanitation in general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_nightingale

Re:What's the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked every Australian bank note had a female on one side and a male on the other. I don't remember any fuss about it happening either.

Re:What's the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

It's weird. In the past, the 10 pound note has featured Florence Nightingale. I don't recall any lynch mobs back then.

Re:What's the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

"Some people need to realise that it isn't 1678 any more."

Nevertheless, we need to deal with the reality that they don't.

Re:What's the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

We've always had the Queen on all our currency in the UK too, but we've also had other women, Elizabeth Fry currently, Florence Nightingale in the past.

People get annoyed because it's typical feminist tosh and Jane Austen is hardly an ideal role model anyway given that there are plenty of female authors, demonstrating that it's nothing to do with empowering young girls to achieve their dreams - there's no barrier to them being successful authors as is given that job is primarily female oriented anyway. If it was someone like Ada Lovelace it would've been a different story and they could've used this argument and it would've been a fair one, but getting a woman on a bank note just for the sake of it regardless of the fact it'll do nothing for improving equality seems a pointless exercise in whining for the sake of whining.

Of course the worst part is all the most annoying breeds of feminists this has brought out the woodwork telling us the internet is out to get them and the whole world is grossly unfair and biased against them. Right, this in a country where women retire and collect their pension earlier, where they get on average 18x more parental leave on birth of a child, and where the courts nearly always default to them in cases of child custody or divorce proceedings and where the education system already caters better to females allowing them to be the higher achievers. Yes, you're so hard done by. It must be awful.

Re:What's the big deal

[kaatochacha]

Because they're bored, and enjoy taunting people on the internet.
They just choose the taunts based on the situations ,and what they think will annoy the original person the most.
I'm guessing, for a good portion of these, the subject matter didn't matter.

Re:What's the big deal

[kaatochacha]

I dunno. The French had the Little Prince on one note, I thought that was rather cool myself.

Re:What's the big deal

[Cederic]

To be fair, if she can't handle trolls on Twitter then she's fucked. erm, figuratively.

But she handled them: She asked the police to investigate a breach of the law, and a man has been arrested.

Meanwhile there'll be a banknote with two pictures of women on it and no pictures of men. Fucking misandrist feminazi should just fuck off.

Re:What's the big deal

[Cederic]

So do the obvious sensible thing: Organise trans people to flag every transphobic comment she makes.

You're not protecting women by abusing transexuals, not least because a lot of transexuals _are_ women.

Ignoring the censorship stuff...

[Anonymous Coward]

in support of feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez, who faced a torrent of abusive tweets, including threats to rape and kill her, after successfully campaigning for a woman's picture to appear on a banknote;

Holy shit, man! What the fuck is this? Welcome to Iran, now available in places other than Iran.

Re:Ignoring the censorship stuff...

[Seumas]

I always find shit like this to be highly suspect. There have been incidents where people who have claimed to be the victims of "threats of violence and rape by evil male internet trolls on the intarwebs" turned out to actually be the ones writing those threats under fake accounts to themselves.

People also need to stop acting like the very few trolls out there who *will say anything to anyone in any situation online where they believe it will upset someone or get them some attention* are somehow representative of actual people's actual thoughts. I'm sure there are a few shitty people out there, but how is it we just stop acknowledging that most of those people saying this shit are just social-rejects who use saying vile shit on the internet to get a response? These same idiots "threatening" the woman this article is about are also likely the same idiots who spend their time hurling slurs around on XBOX Live all evening or posting "atheists should be killed so they can go to the afterlife and see what hell is like and find out how wrong they were" on religion-related articles that Drudge links to from his site.

Taking these people at face value is a lot like taking a toddler at face value and we would do well not to mistake their ridiculous spewings on the internet as actual opinions and thoughts held by actual people (even the hideous ones) in actual life.

Re:Ignoring the censorship stuff...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know this is Twitter, right? You can just go there and search for the tweets in question and view them yourself. Or hell, if that's too much, Google for someone's else's search for the tweets in question.

Re:Ignoring the censorship stuff...

[Anonymous Coward]

"There have been a few incidents", so therefore ALL reports of threats of rape should be treated with suspicion and distrust?

Look, I like the internet wild west we have. I'm happy to blame victims of trolling for being so sensitive and not understanding how to deal with being trolled. Taking trolls at face value is unequivocally dim, but the notion someone should be ignored if they believe there's a general threat just because someone cried wolf once is equally stupid.

Re:Ignoring the censorship stuff...

[operagost]

Something similar, but not so alarming happened in the USA recently. A Cheerios commercial included a mixed-race couple, and a handful of jerks took it upon themselves to complain about it like it was 1955. Far worse, 100 times as many people decided this incident was ironclad evidence that no progress was ever made and the entire white nation is still racist to the hilt; they kept on about it rather than ignoring and thus marginalizing the racists.

Re:Ignoring the censorship stuff...

[Anonymous Coward]

"There have been a few incidents", so therefore ALL reports of threats of rape should be treated with suspicion and distrust?

Have there been a lot of rape threats that actually resulted in a rape? As in, a single one? Anita Sarkeesian sure has gotten a lot of them, so surely at least one or two have managed to make good on them, right?

Until rapes/murders actually happen, IT'S TROLLING. To uptight feminists: YHBT. YHL. HAND. Welcome to the internet. If you can't handle it, GTFO.

Re:Ignoring the censorship stuff...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is pure pride and prejudice. The issue should be dealt with sense and sensibility and not all going and becoming Jane. If this continues, we might all just become Gothic fans and visit Northanger Abbey, an estate filled with dark, ancient and full of Gothic horrors and fantastical mystery.

Re:Ignoring the censorship stuff...

[LordLucless]

Well, Britain is about 5% Islamic now, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's a commonality of attitudes on the lunatic fringe.

Re:Ignoring the censorship stuff...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly enough, at my place of work, there were complaints about this. Except it was African-American staff doing the complaining.

I guess Queen Elizabeth II doesn't count?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I missing something key here? Why is it even a hot issue (campaigning to get a woman's image on a bank note) when the Queen is a woman...

Re:I guess Queen Elizabeth II doesn't count?

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially considering that at the rate the english government bends down to his american counterpart, the "US dollar" will soon be the official currency of UK.

Re:I guess Queen Elizabeth II doesn't count?

[newcastlejon]

The Queen is a given on the currency, the people chosen to appear on the other side are supposed to be there in recognition of their contribution. From a previous post of mine:

...we have the likes of humanitarians, naturalists, composers (albeit overrated IMO), philosophers and engineers.

Re: I guess Queen Elizabeth II doesn't count?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the grievance industry. They won't be satisfied until every p3n15 is surgically removed for the sake of equality.

Re: I guess Queen Elizabeth II doesn't count?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing your .5" erect penis is worthless already. Cutting it off is losing nothing of value.

Re:I guess Queen Elizabeth II doesn't count?

[Anonymous Coward]

While restricting our American banknotes to dead politicians is sort of boring, the fact that the people chosen haven't changed for the past hundred years has prevented some avoidable arguments like the one in TFA.

Though it took a fight to keep the Reagan-worshippers from kicking Grant off the $50 and putting the Gipper on there instead. Every Stephenson fan knows we need to save him for the trillion-dollar bill, after all.

Re:I guess Queen Elizabeth II doesn't count?

[Artifakt]

The key question is how do we get these particular trolls to make their threats against somebody like the queen, whose staff's staff has staff to handle crushing them like grapes and tasting the sweet sweet wine of their eternal tears so no one in the public eye has to go to the trouble?

Re:I guess Queen Elizabeth II doesn't count?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it even a hot issue (campaigning to get a woman's image on a bank note) when the Queen is a woman...

Holy &@*^# ! That's a woman?

Re:I guess Queen Elizabeth II doesn't count?

[Xest]

"The key question is how do we get these particular trolls to make their threats against somebody like the queen"

Get her to start a campaign about getting a famous female on banknotes perhaps?

Oh wait...

Re: I guess Queen Elizabeth II doesn't count?

[Cederic]

The irony here being that FGM is illegal and male GM isn't.

Go fucking figure that one.

Why Jane Austen???

[pla]

I can think of at least a dozen really good female authors (and could probably come up with another hundred halfway decent ones) they could have selected instead of the Queen of Vapidity.

I mean, okay, technically she founded the modern "art" of the Soap Opera - Although she didn't quite advance it to the "interesting plot twist" level, preferring to keep it at the "nothing really happens but someone gets married in the end" level of complexity. But should we really celebrate someone for poisoning 200 years of young girls' minds into thinking their prince would come despite their complete absence of any redeeming qualities whatsoever (except frail "beauty", gotta love that oh-so-attactive dying-of-TB look).

That said, hurling abuse and threats at someone just because they actually did something about what they wanted, while the rest of us sat around and did nothing - Not even remotely cool.

And really, just about anyone must have more merit than the royal family, so... Good show, Caroline! :D

Re:Why Jane Austen???

[arth1]

I don't see why there should be people on the banknotes anyhow.
Hero worship doesn't make for good progress.
If there's a need to do some national chest thumping, do it with actual achievements, not long dead achievers that won't come back.

Or place ads on the money. That might give the notes more historic value. They're doomed anyhow, with all payments going electronic before long, but at least it would be of historical value, unlike a picture of the Nora Roberts of yore. And it would bring in money.

Re:Why Jane Austen???

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why there should be people on the banknotes anyhow.

Maybe because otherwise they would be too similar to the Euro notes. :-)

Re:Why Jane Austen???

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. How about the first science fiction writer, Mary Shelley?

Seriously?

[YukariHirai]

Rape and death threats over pushing for a woman's face on a banknote? Even if you're not fond of feminism, that's overreacting quite a lot.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those Charles Darwin fanbois are frickin' insane.

Re:Seriously?

[Pinky's Brain]

Not necessarily seriously ... feminism is the favourite topic of trolls.

Re:Seriously?

[ocamsrazor]

It's pretty obvious they're all just "taking the piss" at this point.

But apparently it's still too much for the fairer sex's delicate ears.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rape and death threats over pushing for a woman's face on a banknote?

No, not "a woman's face" -- the queen makes the occasional appearance on UK bank notes. It's about Jane Austen's face. It's understandable. I would not be surprised if half (or more) of the death threats came from women. Who should represent UK women on a bank note? Do you really think she's the best of the best the UK has to offer?

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so much an issue of 'delicate ears', so much as an issue of that's a bit of an overreaction to the circumstances. A woman's face on a bank note, even if she isn't the best of candidates resulting in threats of rape and bodily injury?

Seems a bit overblown I would think. Imagine if every time a man was promoted to CEO, placed on a bank note or put in any position or respect or power he got a vast influx of hate mail purely due to his gender, not jealousy of position / status as is most likely the case of any hate mail they will receive. (What I'm saying is I sincerely doubt these men are threatening to rape her because they're jealous she didn't nominate them to be on the banknote, I doubt if a man would have elected another man to be placed on the bill that he would have received rape threats, or even death threats for that matter...)

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

You feminist weak men on this site disappoint me. Instead of acting all feminine on this subject I though for sure someone would have bashed capitalism and bank-sters by now. Come on we are talking about someones face on evil money here earned by hard work and profit. This is a two-fer, you liberal idiots, come on!

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rape and death threats over pushing for a woman's face on a banknote? Even if you're not fond of feminism, that's overreacting quite a lot.

Jane Austen is pretty much the antithesis to feminism.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not even sure how campaigning for a woman's face on a bank note, whose face is just as good a choice as others which have/will be on those bank notes, even counts as feminism.

Re:Seriously?

[H0p313ss]

Rape and death threats over pushing for a woman's face on a banknote?

No, not "a woman's face" -- the queen makes the occasional appearance on UK bank notes. It's about Jane Austen's face. It's understandable. I would not be surprised if half (or more) of the death threats came from women. Who should represent UK women on a bank note? Do you really think she's the best of the best the UK has to offer?

Understandable? DEATH THREATS?

What freaking planet are you from?

Re:Seriously?

[adamofgreyskull]

Not least of all because the face of our monarch, Queen Elizabeth II is on every banknote and social reformer Elizabeth Fry is on the current £5 note. On the £10 note, before Charles Darwin was Charles Dickens and before that? Florence Nightingale...

Re:Seriously?

[YukariHirai]

It's pretty obvious they're all just "taking the piss" at this point.

No, not really. And even if they are just taking the piss, there are certain boundaries, and instances where it's way out of proportion.

Let's say for argument's sake that a man in the public eye says that a woman who is a CEO or a Prime Minister or something shouldn't have the job. If women start bombarding him with messages about how they're going to kill him and/or sodomise him with a strap-on, we'd say that that's uncalled for.

And, bottom line, rape is not okay. Jokes about it are about as off-colour as it's possible to get, and while I won't say "Thou Shalt Not Tell Rape Jokes" should be a universal commandment, there are circumstances where they're just not okay. Outright saying to a person that they ought to be raped is one of many.

Why is twitter involved?

[hsmith]

If someone makes a threat, arrest them and file charges (which has been done in this case). Only when actions have real life consequences will the trolls Learn.

Re:Why is twitter involved?

[Seumas]

Because they don't want someone to have to go to the courts and actually prove that anything happened or was intended. They want to be able to hit a little button on a message and force businesses to supersede the process and make determinations themselves about the content and intent of conversation.

If someone makes a threat on your life that you have reasonable and plausible cause to fear as legitimate, then go to the police. It's already a crime. I don't like the idea of Twitter stepping in and taking on that role any more than I liked the idea of Youtube replacing the court system to deal with DMCA legal complaints by facilitating copyright complaints *themselves* (think, someone wrongly claiming rights to content in your video and being granted the right to put ads on your videos and receive money from them without Youtube giving you the opportunity to address the situation in court, as per the DMCA process).

Everyone cares about free speech and nobody honestly thinks anyone should have to put up with _serious_ actual threats (note, this is different from harassment or "verbal abuse") . . . but how do you properly deal with one while not overstepping onto the other? And do you trust a business and a couple people clicking a "I don't like this comment you guise!" button to make the call?

Re:Why is twitter involved?

[Anonymous Coward]

They want a "report" button so that they can silence all criticism, not just the stuff that is actually illegal.

Re:Why is twitter involved?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, said troll was, in fact, arrested for the tweet.

Twitter said it didn't violate their TOS.

That is where the kerfuffle comes in.

Re:Why is twitter involved?

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't trolls, they're assholes. There's a difference. Trolling is harmless. Abuse and harassment do not fall under trolling.

We need to regulate the Internet!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

For the sake of women and children everywhere!!!!

just wow

[holophrastic]

I could care less about women's lib. Quite frankly, I'd give anything to be a women in the '50s. What a great life. I'm still hoping that women take all of the current jobs, and just let me stay at home cooking and cleaning and caring for children. That's all way better than commuting, working in an office, and the general stress of clients and deadlines.

All of that aside, who's on the bank notes really doesn't have any significance to anybody at all. It doesn't affect lives. So if a bunch of people want to put a woman onto a bank notes, I couldn't care less. Quite frankly, it'd be a welcome change from the really really old guy on our some of our current notes. Although, the queen on the most recent quarter around here really is looking quite ancient.

To think that someone would care so much that they'd resort to death-threats, especially after-the-fact, is way worse than criminal: it's just plain silly. There are so many better things against which to argue.

Re:just wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I could care less about women's lib...

So if a bunch of people want to put a woman onto a bank notes, I couldn't care less.

Do make up your mind.

Re:just wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a stay-at-home parent might seem like fun now, but I think you might change your tune about staying at home if that were always your only option. If you had never been given the option to choose a career path (even if you've obviously chosen the wrong one for your personality, since you hate it that much), you might not be so excited to be a stay-at-home parent. Some choice is better than none.

Furthermore, while nowadays a stay-at-home parent might be able to spend their free time pursuing education and intellectual hobbies, in the 1950s there was a culture against this sort of thing for women (and without the internet, the only access to education materials was through more public means).

I agree that arguing against women on bank notes is pretty silly. However, how exactly is being silly "way worse" than being criminal? Let's examine these sets: the "criminal" set includes actual murderers and rapists. In what way is the "silly" set worse than that? Hyperbole, much?

--Not female, not a feminist, just empathetic

Re:just wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I could care less about women's lib. Quite frankly, I'd give anything to be a women in the '50s. What a great life... way better than commuting, working in an office, and the general stress of clients and deadlines.

Personally, I'd hate waking up every day in the same house where I was forced to perform medial chores, prohibited from holding a career that could meaningfully impact society, and granted identity/significance primarily thru my spouse and kids. That's great if it's part of what you want, but each individual should realistically be able to pursue their own ends, and women of the 50's were expected/pressured/groomed/bullied into a one-size-fits-all pigeonhole.

I submit to you that, if you can get over the handful of brash/man-hating feminists you have met at some time or other, women's lib has done a lot of good for the world: less rape, less domestic violence, equal voting rights, equal property rights, birth control (=> less crime, pollution, poverty), countless amazing athletes/scientists/leaders, and a modern workforce that doesn't resemble a sausage party.

Re:just wow

[holophrastic]

Love my career. Started my own business 20 years ago, at 14, and it's wonderful. But it's a far cry from cooking for a family. Just look at women's average age of death these days. Relatively speaking, it's gone down. It turns out that working for a living adds biological stress that they just didn't have before.

Caged bird, sure. But having twice as many humans in the workforce actually hurts the workforce too.

Re:just wow

[spire3661]

You miss the parts where your husband could beat you with impunity. Also, you better hope you are white and the right religion too otherwise the 50s was not the utopia you think it was.

Re:just wow

[holophrastic]

and sexual harassment in the workplace, greater unemployment, shorter female lifespans (relatively), more feminine men.

as a cognitive exercize, what would you say if having twice as many humans in the workforce were simply too much for the economy to bare? What if we simply can't produce that many jobs per capita? Simply put, not everyone can have a job if society is to thrive. What then?

Re:just wow

[operagost]

You know, race and religion didn't even come up. No one said the 1950s in general were a great time. BTW, no it wasn't legal to beat your wife and neither was religious discrimination allowed, despite what lies you were told in 8th grade this year.

Re:just wow

[scot4875]

Going to work might seem like fun now, but I think you might change your tune about going to work if that were always your only option. If you had never been given the option to choose to be a stay at home parent (even if you end up hating it), you might not be so excited to stay at home. Some choice is better than none.

And if you honestly believe that today men have an option of being a stay-at-home parent, you're delusional. In the US and most of the rest of the world, a woman won't even *look* at you unless you make at least as much as she does.

--Jeremy

Re:just wow

[raque]

Okay – I'll assume you're just trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I have lived that life for the last 20 years as a male and I'll give you, and the rest of Slashdot, some insights. Any ladies can chime in if I've missed or misrepresented anything.
In no particular order:

You exist for the sake of "The Other", who ever that may be. There are usually several. What you want and need doesn't matter any more. You service the needs of others - in every way that can be used - and *must* make that the source of your joy in life. Think about that one for a minute. You fulfill someone else's wants and needs and that *is* how your wants and needs are fulfilled. Having a want or a need that isn't fulfilling someone else's want or need isn't part of the definition.

It's a low level management gig. You have no control over what sort of revenue stream you have, but still have to get stuff done. You can't fire anyone, all you can do is quit.

It doesn't get more back office.

Children don't make for interesting conversation, are endless sinks of want's and need's, aren't grateful, and success in parenting is to make yourself irrelevant.

You are now officially stupid. In matters of any importance no one cares what your opinion is. All status in America and in the West stems from your JOB! Think abut that.

It is boring. How many time can you make the same set of healthy reasonable priced meals and sweep the same floor.

Re:just wow

[scot4875]

You miss the parts where your husband could beat you with impunity.

No they couldn't. Wife beating has never been acceptable. This is a myth.

--Jeremy

Re:just wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Age of death decreasing rather than increasing could also be due to an increase in the general population's worse diet and lack of exercise compared to those days. Do you have any proof that women's lifespans have decreased whilst men's have increased or some other similar comparison?

I'm not disagreeing that stress puts a lot on a person's life expectancy but I'm sure women's lives weren't just lounging at home and eating pastries back in the 1950s either.

Re:just wow

[holophrastic]

you've got neighbours, also parents in a similar way. the "other" as you call them, has exactly the same life but at the office. working all day for a paycheck that someone else (you) is going to spend for them. forced to wake up to your boss's schedule, plus commuting and traffic and weather, go to a place that isn't yours, where you can't control the decorations, the window coverings, nor the other humans around you. you can't leave, you can't change things. you can't change the colour of the paint nor even the temperature of the room!

and, routinely, your boss forces you to travel even farther away. your time management isn't your own. you get yelled at by your "other" (again, you) for being late when you had no control over the schedule, the traffic, the weather, nor the car. you spend about 12 hours every day outside of your own life -- under someone else's collective thumb.

look, in either case, you can love your life. and in either case you can hate your life. you can certainly make things more or less difficult for your other. but it slides both ways -- well, not for me; I'm in a different situation entirely, and intentionally because I hate both of those others.

but just like you say everything you do is for your other, that includes spending all of the money they make -- because they don't even have the time to spend it.

ideally, you would each switch every month, or every "project". which would be great if you shared a career, or a business. it would bring innovation and everything. but I'm the only one who thinks of such things. go figure.

Re:just wow

[Anonymous Coward]

So rather than have women in the job force potentially providing better (and worse) employees and employers you'd rather just cut them out of the workforce? I thought everyone wanted capitalism and competition for the best bang for your buck.

Why would you alienate half the population (potential workforce) when you may be loosing better, more efficient (or likewise worse, less efficient, but at least now you have twice as many people to weed out and more options) who tend to work for less money (not willingly, but reality is reality)?

Oh right, you want to avoid sexual harassment (because men obviously are too cavemen like to control their hormones and organs. Srsly? Sexist much?), unemployment would skyrocket (should definitely limit women's options in life and barricade them away into baby making cages so all the men aren't challenged for their 1337 jobs), shorter female lifespans (I somehow doubt from your posts that this really concerns you) and more feminine men (Um, what? Now I'm thinking I'm falling for troll bait actually. Damn.)

Re:just wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why don't you stay home and cook and let your wife work?

Re:just wow

[holophrastic]

I didn't say cut out only women. I just said not enough jobs for everyone.

As for harassment, men have always treated other men a certain way. When women show up, and expect men to behave differently, that's the problem. Men treating women the way men treat men causes complaints. It's not sexist. It's the exact opposite of harassment. And yet, still complaints.

It's not about being too "caveman", it's about preferring to behave a certain way, upon which all men agree, and with which women disagree. And welcome to segregated sports. There's a reason.

And yes, men are more feminine now than ever before. Start reading.

Re:just wow

[holophrastic]

I'm not in either situation. I do cook at home as often as I like. But I'm an entrepreneur. I sign my own cheques, make my own hours, and watch friends and family struggle throughout.

Re:just wow

[raque]

I'm more interested as to the details of why this myth oh homemaking came to be and why it is so persistent. I run into it on Stay At Home Dad forums, feminist forums, Slashdot. To me the persistent idea of the '50s homemaker is a meme while LOL-Cats are a fad. Or am I splitting the wrong hair?
 

Re:just wow

[Anonymous Coward]

If only you were half as smart as you thought you were, you might not make such stupid statements. The average lifespan for [i]everyone[/i] is still increasing and having more people working and earning money means that more people can spend more money, which drives the economy.

Re:just wow

[kaatochacha]

This.

Re:just wow

[holophrastic]

more people spending the same amount of global money? nice thought. think harder.
and when I commented on life-spans, I did so regarding relative life-spans. the two are completely different. Please read every word, not just the ones you recognize from grade school.

Zip the Lips

[MacGyver2210]

All this tells me is that censorship is alive and well, and at least 55,000 people support it. Makes so much sense!

Re:Zip the Lips

[Desler]

Death theats have never been considered protected speech.

Re:Zip the Lips

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to kill you!

Re:Zip the Lips

[Seumas]

So take it to the police and courts instead of Twitter executives...

Re:Zip the Lips

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you make them, you face the (legal) consequences - why should it be different online?

I would much rather have people spew whatever garbage they want openly, and then we can pick them up. than the alternative of them silently carrying out unspoken/unwritten rapes or murders. (Though in this particular case I doubt there are any seriousnes in the threats, it is trolls trolling. But do pick up every single one making threats and drag them to court, that i believe will be much more effective than censoring (censoring is like putting your hands over your eyes and singing loudly so you can not hear what others say - it changes _nothing_ about their behavior and will just drive them to try harder and do it more secretly - let the idiots dig their own grave in public))

Re:Zip the Lips

[Desler]

They did take it up with the police:

Scotland Yard has confirmed that a 21-year-old man was arrested by police in the Manchester area on 28 July on suspicion of harassment offences.

But I fail to see why they shouldn't take it up with Twitter. Twitter is not meant to be a place to harass and threaten people.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Queen...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Example of having likeness of a queen on a note is quite ironic. The point is to have a Woman that is valued for her achievements not by family she was born to. In addition, women fought hard not to be subjugated be it by Man or government...

Re:Queen...?

[Joining Yet Again]

Queen Liz has achieved a lot of things, most of which were possible only because of the family she was born into and the intelligence she inherited.

Many other people (almost all otheres on the banknotes, in fact) have achieved lots of things, most of which were only possible because of the family they are born into and the intelligence they inherited.

Elizabeth has been a statesperson (advisor and figurehead) since 1952. Even the most ardent republican - and I think that every country has one or more royal families, whether they claim to or not - cannot deny her influence on the world stage.

Problem is always the same.

[Seumas]

The inherent problem with things like this are always with making sure that you don't infringe upon free speech -- hyperbole, sarcasm, irony, humor, and rudeness -- and only get involved in situations where realistic threats are legitimately intended and made. I understand this is in the UK, but do people really want a "zero-tolerance"/TSA style "everything ever uttered is suspicious and must be investigated and vetted" approach? Further, there are already relevant laws in most places to deal with things like this, so . . . how about we leave it at that instead of a business and a mob of users superseding it?

I often feel people simply aren't prepared to handle the internet. As if most of us haven't been on the receiving end of "abuse" online? Haven't been "attacked" or even threatened? Or told that they should be killed? Ever read youtube comments? How about the comment section on any news article that Matt Drudge links to? How about if someone "feels threatened" (or simply offended) by something? We see a lot of that in the real world, as it is. People being punished for something, not because of what they said or the intentions behind it, but how some busy-body "received it"? Does it apply across the board? Is it, as the article's commentary seems to imply, only an issue for "women"?

Hell, have I crossed the line, simply for having the wrong genitalia and not simply jumping on the bandwagon of support for this? (Because, yes, my concerns about people's freedom of speech and people not taking everything seriously and as a threat or offense totally means that I'm in favor of people being threatened and stalked and physically abused... right?).

This all goes back to that whole thing with the MySpace girl that was tricked/harassed (verbally) by neighbors (including adults) until she committed suicide. Or that Youtube girl who committed suicide after her escapades with a grown man brought judgement and insults from people at school both before and after she committed suicide. Yeah, it was harassment and bullying, but we also acknowledge that words don't directly force you to harm yourself. We all hate that bitch and her family for what she did to that poor girl and the consensus seems to be that most of the world wished harm on her. . . but that is distinct from using the law to determine when and why to make exceptions. That being a meany-head is suddenly a crime. That free speech isn't so free, any more. That my thin-skin or lack of a support-group around me is your fault. And those events caused a lot of frustration on Slashdot, too -- because people found themselves so angry at what happened and the idea of someone "getting way with it" . . . . yet opposed to infringing on people's rights to express thoughts. Even shitty ones.

In other words, here too, people need to back the fuck up from "wow, that's shitty -- of course we should do something about it!" and take the time to consider the greater impact of some institutionalized response.

Re:Problem is always the same.

[AmiMoJo]

As if most of us haven't been on the receiving end of "abuse" online? Haven't been "attacked" or even threatened?

The law is fairly clear. If you make a specific threat against someone and it isn't clearly a joke then it doesn't matter if you intended to carry it out, if you had the means to or if the person felt threatened. To be absolutely clear feeling threatened or offended is not enough, there has to be a specific and seemingly serious threat.

Yeah, it was harassment and bullying, but we also acknowledge that words don't directly force you to harm yourself.

I doubt very much those people chose to harm themselves. They were clearly driven to it by mental anguish due to bullying. Some of us may be able to shrug that stuff off like a Vulcan but the effect of sustained psychological abuse on normal people is quite well documented. Some of the most effective torture doesn't involve any physical harm to the victim.

For years now there has been a campaign to recognize mental illness as being the same as physical illness. It's not a sign of weakness or a feeble mind, it's the way the human brain works. Apparently they still have a long way to go convincing people.

Re:Problem is always the same.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then we will see campaigns to hire feeble minded on equal grounds with capable people, and so and so right? No, physical and psychological illnesses are different, even though people can't be blamed for both, they are very different. And we tend to consider psychological illnesses things that make me laugh (like drug dependence), because if it is true that they are ill, why the many other that resisted the temptation aren't given the same benefits? It's not like it's the choice of most people to loose an arm or leg.

Re:Problem is always the same.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it was harassment and bullying, but we also acknowledge that words don't directly force you to harm yourself.

I doubt very much those people chose to harm themselves. They were clearly driven to it by mental anguish due to bullying. Some of us may be able to shrug that stuff off like a Vulcan but the effect of sustained psychological abuse on normal people is quite well documented. Some of the most effective torture doesn't involve any physical harm to the victim.

The problem is that it is not always clear at all that they were 'driven to it by mental anguish due to bullying'. In several recent high-profile cases of this sort featuring teenagers media commentators actually seem very keen to reject the idea that suicidal depression exists, or that the deceased had any sort of mental problem. Instead the events are described in ways that make them seem like some kind of 'indirect murder', as if the deceased was a perfectly mentally sound individual who was effectively obliged to kill themselves by the actions of their evil peers. That's not being supportive about mental illness, that's close to denying it exists. Perhaps this way of looking at things is easier for the bereaved family, but it shouldn't be public policy.

Any time a teen commits suicide it will always be possible to find some of their peers who excluded them from a party, or who said something bitchy about them etc. It's not necessarily sensible to equate this with psychological abuse. Not every situation has clearly distinguishable victims and perpetrators.

Re:Problem is always the same.

[Jahta]

The inherent problem with things like this are always with making sure that you don't infringe upon free speech -- hyperbole, sarcasm, irony, humor, and rudeness -- and only get involved in situations where realistic threats are legitimately intended and made.

No, the inherent problem is people who think that, because it's on the internet, they can get away with threatening behaviour by dressing it up as a free speech issue; "hey dude, I was just expressing my hyperbole/sarcasm/irony/humor/rudeness/whatever".

Like for example, one of the guys quoted in this article (thanks to deains for the link in another thread) Twitter abuse: What women-hating trolls really believe - Telegraph; "She would know these men wouldn’t actually come and rape her. They don’t mean it. Rape is a metaphor.".

Oh really? And how are we meant to intuit that? Is there a special smiley that says "I'm not really going to rape you, I'm just having a laugh"? Making threats against another person is illegal; there's no magic exemption for doing it online.

Re:Problem is always the same.

[Anonymous Coward]

but that is distinct from using the law to determine when and why to make exceptions. That being a meany-head is suddenly a crime.

Hasn't writing to people and threatening to rape and murder them always been a crime?

Re:Problem is always the same.

[Jason Levine]

I've been the subject of abuse online and offline. Some abuse can be shrugged off. If someone replies to my comment telling me that I'm an idiot and all of my viewpoints are garbage, I'll care about it for about one nanosecond. That's all Some Random Commenter I Don't Know deserves.

On the flip side, there are some people who will start to repeatedly harass you online over and over. I had one woman who would harass me on Twitter and on my blog. Then she harassed my wife as well. She has a history of harassing people (sometimes for months, sometimes for years) and is clearly mentally ill (she thinks she's a prophet of God and that I'm really someone else who is secretly in love with her... or something like that - her tales get twisted in such a fashion only she can understand them). She has contacted people's employers, "contacted" multiple police departments to report people (where "contacting" means sending an e-mail often accusing the people of pedophilia with no evidence) and even the hospital where one person's boyfriend was being treated for cancer. (Claiming that he was faking having cancer for insurance money... like the doctors wouldn't figure that out.) Thankfully, she seems to have moved on from me at the moment but at any moment she could decide that I'm someone she has to "report" again. She gets banned from Twitter only to reappear with another account hours later. (I think she's up to 300 by now... I've lost track.)

I and others have contacted the police, but she's in Canada and I'm in the US so nothing gets done. She did harass someone in Canada prompting Canadian police to visit her and a lawsuit to start, but that all fell through. (Partly when the police told her exactly WHO reported her... yeah, that's smart!) Thankfully, she's not violent or prone to travel to her targets, but who knows if that will change?

In short, you have the right to express your thoughts and people have the right to ignore said thoughts. However, when those thoughts get increasingly harassing, they get harder to ignore. Being told that you'll be raped or killed because you support Cause X is NOT free speech and never has been. That's harassment and should result in charges. If the only way you can express yourself in opposition to Cause X is telling supporters that you'll rape and/or kill them, then you need to seriously re-examine your debate skills before you say/post anything else.

Re:Problem is always the same.

[ZorroXXX]

For any (large) group communication space, there is always a need for (some) moderation. See http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2005/05/a-group-is-its-own-worst-enemy.html for some discussion for instance.

Imagine a line representing freeness of speech, with 0% at one end and 100% at the other end (the word freeness here meaning lack of any restrictions). Where on that line would you put a cross for the optimum value of free speech? There are no countries in the world (or any society though history) that allows 100%. There are typically many things you are not allowed to say, like uttering death threats, crying fire in a theatre when there is no fire, in a court you are not allowed to lie (think about how enormous restriction of free speech that actually is), etc.

The point is, exactly what the "optimum" value of free speech is is always a subjective opinion, and it is always less than 100% (although normally quite close).

Also I assume you are a man that have not been exposed to the darker side of the this problem which apparently is significant (I am also a man so I have neither a first hand experience). I recommend you to watch the documentary "Uppdrag granskning: Menn som nÃtthatar kvinnor " (men net hating women), http://www.svt.se/ug/man-som-nathatar-kvinnor, if you can find a translated version (https://sv-se.facebook.com/granskning/posts/10151724543289883).

Re:Problem is always the same.

[DutchUncle]

Sorry, no. The whole attitude that it's OK to threaten and berate people online because you're anonymous, in a manner that one would never dare do in person, is a problem. Free speech doesn't mean you can walk up to a guy in a bar and insult his mother; or, rather, you *can*, but it says nothing about the possible consequences.

Re:Problem is always the same.

[NotSanguine]

The issue isn't that some folks said some unflattering things. The issue is that some folks threatened violence (rape and murder are violence) and some even tried (but apparently failed) to post the home address of this person. That's not just disagreeing or being a jerk on the Interwebs. Death/rape threats and attempts to track down the threatened is not just harmless fun for the trolls. I'm all for free speech (although this is in the UK, where they don't have guarantees of free speech) even when that speech is nasty or mean. However, threatening life and limb is something else altogether, IMHO.

Re:Problem is always the same.

[Anonymous Coward]

>the effect of sustained psychological abuse on normal people is quite well documented.

>there has been a campaign to recognize mental illness as being the same as physical illness. It's not a sign of weakness or a feeble mind, it's the way the human brain works.

You contradict yourself. On the one hand, you describe how the victims of bullying who comitted suicide weren't necessarily abnormal, because "normal people" can be effected by psychological abuse... but then you refer to mental illness and physical illness as "the same"... meaning they're both types of *illness* and represent a *problem* that is not *acceptable*.

Re:Problem is always the same.

[thejynxed]

I know the person you are talking about, I also know that person who's boyfriend/fiance was in the hospital. Small world, online.

I did correlation searches on this woman using metrics like her repeated spelling errors of certain words, and I lost track at exactly 342 accounts that I am about 99% certain are hers, some still active, most were totally banned/suspended. I am sure she has more accounts sitting idle that she can move to when the others finally get canned.

I do think the woman is literally insane. BTW, if you have a Facebook account, don't be shocked if she has sockpuppet accounts she'll use to bother you on there, as well.

Re:Problem is always the same.

[magic maverick]

Jason Levine. I'm going to hunt you down. I'm going to come to your house. And I'm going to give you the kissing you deserve! You'll get suck a kissing from me bucko, you'll remember it for the rest of your life. If your wife also wants a kissing, that may also be an option.

Re:Problem is always the same.

[Jason Levine]

No Facebook accounts for me, but my wife is on Facebook. She keeps her Facebook account with her real name separate from her blog pseudonym.

Of course, you can see why I don't mention her by name. The last thing I want is for her to know my real name (I use a pseudonym online) and try to harass me that way. Not that I think she'd do any actual damage, but she'd be very annoying. (Sort of how a bunch of houseflies in your house won't hurt you but will REALLY annoy you for awhile.)

I actually don't wish anything bad for her. I just hope she gets the help she needs as quickly as possible. Then she can be better and the people she's been harassing can get some peace.

Re:Problem is always the same.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like physical abuse can result in physical harm, psychological abuse can result in mental harm. Potential consequences of severe mental harm include schizophrenia, clinical depressions and suicidal behavior. These are also described as "mental illnesses". There is no contradiction in the GP's statements.

Re:Problem is always the same.

[Xest]

"The law is fairly clear."

Actually that's the problem, the law isn't very clear. That's why a guy had to lose his job and suffer years of appeals over what was very clearly to anyone with even a couple of braincells a joke about bombing Doncaster airport.

I agree that mental abuse isn't always entirely harmless and I agree that you can push someone to suicide through it and that there's basically something wrong with the idea of being able to get away with that but I think there's something to be said for the idea that many of those people who do commit suicide do so because they already had much deeper issues such as depression which goes back to your point about improving awareness of mental illness. If these people were treated for their depression in the first place then they probably wouldn't commit suicide over some mind games.

What a lot of these people don't realise is that what people are saying to them offensively online is only what other people have always said about them behind their backs in real life. Chances are if someone thinks you're an idiot online and calls you out on it there will be plenty of people saying the exact same thing about you in real life.

In this particular case this person was campaigning to impose her will on the population (and the will of others) without any democratic examination of the issue. In this respect it's not surprising that those on the other side of the debate felt marginalised by use of populism and so due to having lack of a voice against said populism decided to lash out instead. I'm not saying this girl's particular special interest group is wrong in what they are seeking, but you have to accept that if you're a special interest group lobbying for some special interest "thing" rather than let it be decided in a more democratic manner then you're going to really piss some people off who don't have the same lobbying power as you.

Do we all not get pissed off at the RIAA/MPAA lobbying to have fundamental rights such as the right to fair trial removed from our justice systems? Do some of us not think the world would be a better place if the RIAA/MPAA execs/lobbyists behind this died horribly? would we shed a tear if something happened to them?

It's the same thing and it's not a question of right or wrong, I think women on bank notes is fine (though I'd not have chosen Jane Austen - seems like a poor choice out of the many successful women through history in the UK) but the point is simply that lobbying for change on a special interest item and bypassing democratic process leaving some people voiceless is going to make those voiceless people lash out, whether they're in the right or the wrong and again, it's the price you pay for lobbying. You have to accept that - you can't lobby as a special interest and expect your opponents if they feel disenfranchised and deprived of a voice to just lie down and take it.

Re:Problem is always the same.

[Cederic]

It's possible there's a generational thing going on. Online gaming has kids going, "I'm going to rape your corpse" when they really mean, "I think I'm good enough to kill you in the game and I want to taunt you about it".

If they then take that language and use it on Twitter there's a culture shift in the audience that isn't reflected in their own mode of speaking or attitudes.

Or it could just be that some stupid fuckwit thought it was appropriate to threaten a woman with rape. I don't know. I don't like her either, it just never occurs to me to threaten anybody with rape.

oh noes

[Anonymous Coward]

somebody somewhere said something nasty addressed to me, how can I go on living like this??

More Jewish censorship coming...

[Anonymous Coward]

... this is about silencing dissent, nothing else...
You can guarantee that all the rape 'threats' were made up by JEW rabble rousers, so that we can 'think of the children' and report anything that anybody says, if the JEWS don't like it...

You know, little problems like the homicidal gas chambers being a myth... little lies like that...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Kl6RHKIQk

Watch the video and THEN tell me I'm wrong.

Re:More Jewish censorship coming...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have added you to our list.

Re:More Jewish censorship coming...

[NotSanguine]

... this is about silencing dissent, nothing else... You can guarantee that all the rape 'threats' were made up by JEW rabble rousers, so that we can 'think of the children' and report anything that anybody says, if the JEWS don't like it...

You know, little problems like the homicidal gas chambers being a myth... little lies like that...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Kl6RHKIQk

Watch the video and THEN tell me I'm wrong.

You're wrong.

Umm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't there an image of the queen on every note? She's alleged to be a woman, no?

misandry!

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap AlistairCharlton , how about a freakin' triggers warning?!!
Is it misogyny to tip the stripper with these Jane Austin bills?

Re:misandry!

[Stumbles]

Oh man that should raise a few hackles from the lesbo's and fembots..

Policing twitter is dumb

[The Optimizer]

She sums it up pretty well... http://judgybitch.com/2013/07/29/policing-twitter-is-dumb/

Re:Policing twitter is dumb

[Jason Levine]

From that article: "Twitter is just another arena. The normal rules don’t apply. You can say things you would NEVER say in real life. That’s social media. And if you don’t like the rules, well, get off Twitter."

I'd beg to differ. I've been using Twitter for 5 years now and I'll admit that I say many things on Twitter that I wouldn't say face-to-face, but that's primarily because I feel more comfortable socializing via computer. That being said, I have a very simple rule for what I say on Twitter:

Imagine you are in a room standing on a stage in front of your boss, co-workers, parents, assorted family, friends, spouse, and kids*. Would you STILL say what you are about to say? If the answer is no for ANY reason (e.g. "My boss would fire me" or "My parents would freak"), then don't say it.

What you say on Social Media isn't private. What you send via e-mail isn't private. Text messages aren't private. (As Anthony Weiner found out.) They are, at best, "public" messages that just haven't been shared with someone else yet.

Saying "I'm going to rape you for your beliefs" is not allowed because "the normal rules don't apply." The rules of being a human being apply, it's just easier to be a jerk to a screen name and small avatar photo belonging to someone who-knows-where than it is to be a jerk to someone standing right next to you. And threatening a person with bodily harm is going beyond being a jerk and veering down the criminal harassment path. Anyone who thinks they can harass people online and get away with it because "it's on the Internet" is sorely mistaken.

* Depending on the age of your kids and the topic, you might be able to leave the kids out of the theoretical room.

Re:Policing twitter is dumb

[H0p313ss]

Well said.

What people fail to realize is that the rules to Twitter should actually be MORE strict, not less.

You're not just speaking in a crowded room with your parents and children watching, the whole freaking world including your future partners and employers are watching and will be able to look up EVERYTHING you ever said.

Twitter is run by assholes

[Cruciform]

A couple of years ago, a user by the name of @goferet was sending regular rape and death threats to women. I saved links to 8 of the rape threats and 2 of the death threats, and contacted Twitter support.

They responded that his actions did not violate their terms of service. I pointed them directly to the terms of service page, and the specific mention of threats.
They didn't see a problem with what he was saying. Specifically things like he was planning to climb in their windows at night and rape them, some of them past rape victims who were campaigning for better investigations and fairer treatment of victims.

I thought maybe it was just the one idiot in support I was getting, but even the @support account didn't think anything of it.

What eventually did stop him making the threats was that I contacted people that he was associated with on Twitter and suggested they read his feed directly, so they could see what he was doing in his mentions, outside of the regular feed they saw. There was some disgust, and one person who knew him got him to finally shut his mouth.

Obviously there was an element that could have been "Leave it to the police", especially when some of the people he was attacking lived in the same city. But since Twitter was ignoring their *own* policies to let him threaten other users it was pretty vile on their parts.

Re:Twitter is run by assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

and so is slashdot. Boo hoo, man up and just deal with it. It was probably a night prowler wanna bee. Liberals are such little babies, the tea party and everyone else gets threats but they never see it as such, wah.

Re:Twitter is run by assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ludicrous. I don't see how you could possibly rape a window.

How does a pane of glass _not_ put out, anyway?

Re:Twitter is run by assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

Campaigning against twitter for this would be like boycotting at&t after receiving threatening phone calls. And insisting that they delete/block such comments is ignoring, and in the worst case destroying, evidence of a crime. This is matter for the police and courts...whether or not they are competent enough to investigate is another matter.

Re:Twitter is run by assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

Civilized. You ain't.

Re:Twitter is run by assholes

[lissnup]

Great work, really commendable. You didn't emphasis what I see as a crucial point in your tale: adult internet users are actually capable of "policing" their own networks, and at least some members are capable of changing their abusive or offensive behaviour in response to peer pressure. We don't need to be constantly nannied and censored. Government and legislation is supposed to be for issues that we can't manage successfully as groups or individuals.

Re:Twitter is run by assholes

[Cruciform]

I found that the problem with Twitter is that they were presenting the false image of a company that doesn't tolerate users harassing and threatening others, via their policies, but not living up to that image. And not giving the community better tools to deal with such users.

If they are going to claim that they do not tolerate threats then they should deal with them and "jail" the abusers, keep evidence intact, etc.
Obviously some people are going to try and work around that by creating new accounts to harass from, but as long as Twitter presents the facade of giving a damn they should act.

Otherwise there are community tools they could create. Harassing messages could be flagged and meta-moderated by third parties. Similar to here. Build up a record of abuse and it essentially mutes you. It should be easy enough to prevent false-flagging campaigns just by utilizing the extremely large pool of users for meta-moderation.

Re:Pride And Predjudice

[Seumas]

To be fair, I doubt even five percent of those leaving shitty comments to supporters have ever read Jane Austen.

Actually, I doubt even five percent of those supporting the bank-note thing have ever read Jane Austen.

It does seem weird to have an author on currency, but whatever.

Boo hoo

[jebus187]

If you don't like what people say on Twitter. Don't go on Twitter. Simple as that.

Re:Boo hoo

[Kiwikwi]

If you don't like what people say on Twitter. Don't go on Twitter. Simple as that.

And someone posts your address on Twitter, and the death threats starts arriving in your mail? Don't open your mail. Simple as that.

Re:Boo hoo

[Dominare]

If you don't like what people say on Twitter. Don't go on Twitter. Simple as that.

I'm going to stand outside your house, then when you leave, I'm going to punch you in the face. Then, as you lie bleeding on the pavement, I'm going to say, "Well, if you don't like what people do out here, stay indoors. Simple as that."

Sound good?

Re:Boo hoo

[jebus187]

Real constructive. Come on down to my house I will fill you with lead you little pansy.

Re:Boo hoo

[jebus187]

Kiwi I see your point there. Social media is just a big playgroud for trolls. I was just saying the more you stay away from that stuff they less you have to worry about. I guess it changes when you are a public figure and cannot help it.

If you don't like the picture

[rainer_d]

Just pay by credit-card or ask for 2*5 in return...

I'm really surprised at what people can get worked up on.

Re:If you don't like the picture

[wcrowe]

Exactly. In an age where cash is not that necessary, and you can put pretty much whatever picture you want on your credit card, I am surprised people care either way.

Feminist: "I want a woman on a bank note!"
Me: Srsly?

Misogynist: "I don't want a woman on a bank note!"
Me: Srsly?

Re:If you don't like the picture

[Anonymous Coward]

Only dopy liberals keep using the term Misogynist, its really hard to take you Srsly.

Re:If you don't like the picture

[H0p313ss]

Only dopy liberals keep using the term Misogynist, its really hard to take you Srsly.

Let's play "spot the self-identifying comment".

Oh the humanity!

[wjcofkc]

Every time I gain a little faith in humanity, it falls into a sinkhole as we see here with the twitter abuse, only to be built back up by good hearted people (the 55,000). We live in extra bizarre times thanks to mass communication. Across the whole of the earth, I often wonder which dominates: good or evil? Is evil hereditary for some and good others, or do social conditioning factors override that very notion? I doubt it's that simple anyway, but I really truly don't understand much of what drives hatred, except perhaps ignorance.

I would ask if humanity as a whole can be repaired, but I suspect we were overall broken from the start. Barring a technological singularity event that has us all holding transcended hands after it occurs, this is a reminder that we need to leave the planet and go our separate idealogical ways... forever.

Re:Oh the humanity!

[spire3661]

Good dominates by far. If not we would be consumed with killing each other all the time. We are not 'broken', we are growing up to be gods, its not always pretty. We'll get there. ITs discussions like this that expose our still child-like nature.

Re:Oh the humanity!

[Jason Levine]

"Across the whole of the earth, I often wonder which dominates: good or evil?"

My personal belief? Good dominates but evil is louder.

Re:Oh the humanity!

[wjcofkc]

Well said. I needed a reminder that I closely hold extropian ideals. Lately I have found it easy to lose my way in the chaos of our growing pains.

Re:Oh the humanity!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good dominates by far. If not we would be consumed with killing each other all the time. We are not 'broken', we are growing up to be gods, its not always pretty. We'll get there. ITs discussions like this that expose our still child-like nature.

Based on that comment, if you had even the slightest interest in Harry Potter, you might like www.hpmor.com

Re:Oh the humanity!

[Thud457]

time for a new slashdot poll:

I have murdered:

• 0 people
• 1-5 people
• 6-30 people
• I only rob people
• I rape them after I murder them
• Pol Pot was a slacker
• only people that really deserved it

Re:Oh the humanity!

[Cederic]

good hearted people (the 55,000).

Good hearted, but fucking stupid. Has a single fucking one of them articulated how to actually make this work, make it apply equally to everybody irrespective of gender, race, nationality, sexual preference, language, intelligence and amihotornot.com rating?

Or are they going, "Oh, this is terrible. Someone must do something about it" and ignoring the sheer fucking difficulty of doing something that doesn't get someone fucked over by a mob mentality?

Ok, twitters report form may be excessively long and painful to complete, and that may even be intentional to reduce the support overhead required. Flooding support with 'This tweet is nasty' reports isn't going to fucking help either.

Want toe see muy Amerkan TEETH?!!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I swear to god. just make it stop

Already a woman on banknotes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't there already the picture of a woman on various banknotes? Specifically, Elizabeth Windsor, aka the Queen?

Re:Pride And Predjudice

[Thud457]

It does seem weird to have an author on currency, but whatever.

Well, it would be more fitting to put great financiers that benefited society on their currency.
They just haven't been able to come up with any suitable candidates yet.

Roddy Piper sez:

[Anonymous Coward]

Reptoids don't count.

Need a little more Sense and Sensibility...

[Chris Mattern]

...and little less Pride and Prejudice, I think. Perhaps if we tried some Persuasion...

Obligatory...

[Anonymous Coward]

after successfully campaigning for a woman's picture to appear on a banknote

Tits or GTFO.

Note from Pedant

[dwye]

You should have used "median" rather than "mean" to contrast with "average". The average is precisely the same as the arithmetic mean.

Re:Note from Pedant

[Obfuscant]

The average is precisely the same as the arithmetic mean.

Unless you are using average to refer to the median. Or to the mode. "Arithmetic mean" is one thing; "average" can be any one of three.

Should Already Be Illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Making of threat of a serious crime should already be prosecutable, (as far as I understand). It's time for the Police to start doing their job.

Trolling the wrong way bro, libs LOVE feminists

[Anonymous Coward]

Feminism, at least modern version of it supported by many liberals, is all about asking the state to intervene to help a (supposedly) disadvantage special interest group, at the expense of the rest of society who are (supposedly) richer than the special interest group.

Proposed solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone just calm the fuck down. The correct way to handle this is to troll the hell out of this feminist by drawing a big set of tits on every one of these bills you encounter. Not because of any disrespect for women, mind you, but because loud humorless complaining feminists deserve to fail. They ever put Bill Clinton on a bill over here, I'm drawing cocks & balls on it. Difference is Bill would probably laugh where as serious public feminists don't appear to know how to.

NSA vs. Twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see who wins this smackdown.

Woman's Picture?

[Anonymous Coward]

after successfully campaigning for a woman's picture to appear on a banknote; Jane Austen will appear on £10 notes from 2017

Because THE QUEEN isn't a woman??!?

Just wow

[Anonymous Coward]

This has to be the worst Slashdot discussion I have seen in the last decade.

Yeah, I'd go with Linda if choosing a Lovelace

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'd go with Linda if choosing a Lovelace, especially if choosing by figure.

or what the hell, go with Amanda Seyfried

ironic captcha: intimacy