Slashdot Mirror


Justine Sacco, Internet Justice, and the Dangers of a Righteous Mob

An anonymous reader writes "So what exactly was the injustice that everyone was fighting against here? There were no pro-Sacco factions, nobody thought her comment was funny, and it became clear early on that her employers were not going to put up with this. It was quite easy for groups to unite against her precisely because it was such an obviously idiotic comment to make. By the time Valleywag had posted her tweet, the damage to her career was already done; there wasn't any 'need' for further action by anyone. The answer is a bit darker – this wasn't really about fairness, it was about entertainment."

59 of 399 comments (clear)

  1. Fantastic summary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow, I feel like I understand the issue so well now! Thanks, samzenpus!

  2. Why so much butthurt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Was anyone actually offended by her remark?
    Or do people just like being outraged?

    1. Re:Why so much butthurt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      This comment offends me.

    2. Re:Why so much butthurt? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's the funny thing. I haven't read very many comments from South Africans, or Africans in general, demonstrating their anger. The majority of the "outrage" seems to be coming from Europeans and North Americans.

      I hesitate to call what has happened "entertainment". It was more of a good old' fashioned mob, but "on a computer". People get a rush out of being outraged and being part of a communal attack on an errant individual or group. They can wip themselves up into a vast moral outrage, feel very superior to the person in question (even if the likelihood is fairly high that they've said the same or worse) and eak out some vicarious revenge that they can use to pump up their ego.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Why so much butthurt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Humans get a dopamine boostfrom being outraged and feeling morally superior. For some people, it's practically the only thing going for them in their lives. Twitter and Tumblr is like crack to these people. They have a name, Social Justice Warriors, because you know, real justice doesn't cut it. See also Professional Victims and White Knights.

    4. Re:Why so much butthurt? by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      People like being outraged when they are insulated from others. It's a typical, "Mee too ZOMG!" online reaction.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:Why so much butthurt? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The likelihood of saying the same or worse is pretty low for most normal people.

      False. Her comment made light of a terrible situation, to be sure. But importantly, it did not advocate for any bad things to happen to anyone. Have most normal people done worse? Yes.

      Most people supported the Iraq war. Most people support the War on Drug Users. Most people support "enhanced interrogation", aka torture. You can turn on Fox News any day of the week, and find people saying things far worse than what Sacco said. Why are they worse? Because they are seriously trying to implement policies that harm people. Get some perspective.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Why so much butthurt? by khallow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So only the victims of racism should be offended by racism?

      Well there is this thing in legal theory called "standing". The idea crudely is that for things that don't rise to the level of a crime, then one needs to demonstrate that one has been adversely affected by the behavior or activity. If one can't do this, such as would be the case with a whiny, anonymous person at a keyboard, then one doesn't have standing and hence, the judge can tell them to shut up and get lost.

      I think this is an excellent way to deal with the endless, useless complaints of racism for behavior and opinions that harms no one aside possibly from the instigator. As a bonus, it gives you more time for your other odious habits.

    7. Re:Why so much butthurt? by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It isn't that whites are immune to aids, it is about the differences in culture and education about aids in africa. Whites in africa are more prone to follow western concepts about safe sex so H.I.V/A.I.D.S in africa vastly impacts the white population less than the black populstions. Another problem is that Eugenics is not that far removed from africa and a lot of talk about using condums gets dismissed as trying to qeed the blacks, or certain tribes out of the population so unprotected sex with strangers is encouraged in some areas. There was even at one time claims of a cure by having unprotected sex with a virgin which condemned a lot if innocent girls to rape and infection.

      I don't think tjis is at all a joking matter but it likely will not get better any time soon. Maybe making fun of the culture and life styles is needef to get people to actually examine the problems. I don't think many who clain the comment wss bad understand any of that.

    8. Re:Why so much butthurt? by CauseBy · · Score: 3, Funny

      There once was a man named Rex
      With an extremely small organ of sex
      And he said with composure
      When arrested for exposure
      De minimis non curat lex

      "De minimis" is not exactly the same thing as standing but I see your point.

    9. Re:Why so much butthurt? by rk · · Score: 2

      Still waiting for the explanation where one's feelings towards something isn't valid unless it fits into jurisprudence, but okay.

    10. Re:Why so much butthurt? by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 2

      Humans get a dopamine boostfrom being outraged and feeling morally superior.

      I bet it's good to know you are better than all those people.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    11. Re:Why so much butthurt? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      You are quite right, that is a much better way to phrase it. From the Wikipedia the second traditional case where you have standing is

      2. The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called "chilling effects" doctrine.

      But it's been over a century since such expansive rules of standing were reliably honored by the US courts.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    12. Re:Why so much butthurt? by superwiz · · Score: 2

      Are you seriously saying Obama won *because* he was black?

      That is such a loaded piece of crap question and anyone who asks it is an ass hole. I am sorry tired of being polite to people who are obviously doing nothing but insulting those who do not deserve insulting and who think that their passive aggressive eloquence somehow makes it ok. You know -- people like you. But hey, what the hell? It's Christmas. So I'll actually address your idiocy as if it came from an actual thinking human being rather than a drone that you are.

      No, Obama being black was by no means the sole reason he was elected. Nor did my comment suggest anything of the kind. Events have multiple consequences. In much the same way, they have multiple contributing factors (multiple outputs AND multiple inputs if you want to think of life as information processing). Had he not be been black, that contributing element would not be present as a contributing factor in his election. Given that under the circumstances under which he ran most white Presidents would have lost, a conclusion must be drawn that being black helped his chances rather than diminish them.

      There have been lots of black people in the history of America that were not able to pull of being elected president by virtue of being black.

      No shit, Sherlock. Sky is still blue, right? You are as dumb as everyone who posts the answer "just google it" to every question in a forum... you know the forums... the ones whose questions come as search results when you google... I love finding half of my google searches pointing to questions which have a random "just google it" answer from a twerp like you.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    13. Re:Why so much butthurt? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering key parts of his campaign rolled around it

      Considering that he's the first US president who wasn't 100% white, I think it's fairly safe to say that in general being black does not help your chances of being president.

      I am not denying that his being black helped get him some votes (especially among black people), but what I am saying is that it actually probably cost him a lot more votes. Even if every black person voted for him, that's only about 13% of the population (who already traditionally vote democrat). There are probably at least as many, if not more, people that voted against him because he was black.

      and there's no shortage of to this day "If you're against any part of whatever Obama is doing, you're a racist."

      We live in a country of 300 million people. For just about any crazy statement, you can probably find at least 50 people willing to say it on TV.

      There are people out there who will say that anybody opposed to anything Obama wants is racist. There are also people out there (many of the legislators), who will refuse to support anything Obama supports just to be in opposition to Obama. I think it probably has to do more with politics than racism, but for some of those detractors, the animosity probably stems from racism. I don't know what percentage, but it's probably bigger than 0 and smaller than 100.

    14. Re:Why so much butthurt? by khallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That a lame, racist comment was made by a PR executive and created a media firestorm should surprise exactly no one.

      I just wonder why people can't see that this is a really terrible way to "cause social change"? It's just a shuffling around of who's a legitimate target of bigotry. My view is that bigots are just as much human as anyone else. It should be just as wrong to discriminate against someone merely because they exhibit common human flaws like bigotry as the color of their skin.

      This should especially be true for the people who believe that people by their inherent nature are bigoted. Why ostracize someone for exhibiting human behavior that alleged can't be eliminated?

    15. Re:Why so much butthurt? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      I think racist comments certainly have a negative effect. I also think angry mobs that make examples out of unlucky people also have a negative effect.

      Maybe Justine got what she deserved, and maybe some extra. When is the angry mob going to get what they deserve?

  3. Re:Or maybe... by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Funny

    And never get another one again. Unless it's PR spokesperson for the KKK.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  4. The author has a couple of good points. by wcrowe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The author makes a valid point when he says that there is no evidence that her account was hacked, but what if it were. Indeed. What if your account gets hacked, or someone sets up an account pretending to be you, and then they post something provacative or outrageous. A lot of damage can be done before you even have a chance to respond.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:The author has a couple of good points. by scream+at+the+sky · · Score: 2

      The little bit that I have read says that this isn't the first time she's made racially motivated comments.

      Just like no one would blink if someone hacked this account and posted sarcastic remarks about, well, anything.

      --
      I wish I was a neutron bomb, for once I could go off...
  5. Ummm... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Was there ever some kind of doubt that this was about watching somebody fuck up and then get hounded mercilessly? Anybody?

    People get off on blood sports and mob violence, this is the mostly-legal and really easy flavor.

  6. Seriously? by Kimomaru · · Score: 2

    This is really a ./ post? Really? This isn't an issue of someone tweeting stupidity and being harassed by people who are just like her? What a waste of energy.

  7. Context? by YuppieScum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it really too much to ask for the "summary" to actually provide even the tiniest morsel of context?

     

    --
    This sig left unintentionally blank.
    1. Re:Context? by twocows · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who is Justine Sacco and why should I care? My 70 year old Dad makes stupid, racist comments all the time (love him anyway, but man, some old people). I think he has even had a few internet mobs after him because he kept posting stupid, racist things to a primarily left-leaning internet forum for the better part of five years.

      I understand that I could Google this or read the article, but the point is that the summary should offer some context for people unfamiliar with whatever this story is about, and it utterly fails to do that. It's a mess, the editor didn't do his job at all here.

    2. Re:Context? by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 5, Informative

      Justine Sacco was a PR executive at IAC. IAC being the owner of sites like Ask.com, About, Vimeo, OkCupid, match.com, etc.

      A PR exec should know that you should not say these things on a global soapbox like twitter.

    3. Re: Context? by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      Most black women get AIDS from black men who were infected while in prison by engaging in homosexual activity.

  8. What kind of summary is this? by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 2

    This might be the worst "summary" I've ever seen on slashdot.

    --
    The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    1. Re:What kind of summary is this? by fisted · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well it's a UDP summary.

    2. Re:What kind of summary is this? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seriously, I read /. regularly, and I have no clue what the hell is going on here from the summary alone. As in, not even a slight clue as to what the problem was originally. Sure, you can post some analysis, but sum up what happened up to this point for people who really haven't heard the original story.

  9. How did a bozo like that get an executive PR gig? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Companies need to stop coddling rich morons from overpriced schools and instead hire talented working class people who can actually get the job done.

  10. Another Case of Poe's Law? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those who didn't RTFA, her tweet said:

    "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!"

    I thought it was intended to be darkly ironic, reflecting an awareness of the privileges that the poor in africa don't have. It was an ugly truth, but censoring her for saying it doesn't help anyone except people who would rather pretend that aids in africa isn't a problem that lines up with race and economic status. She wasn't saying that aids is a disease for black people, she was saying that too many black people don't have access to the resources to protect themselves.

    Compare this to the Duck Dynasty thing where the guy really had no sense of irony, the surface meaning of his words was the intended meaning.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:Another Case of Poe's Law? by Xolotl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are reading way too much intelligence into her tweet ....

    2. Re:Another Case of Poe's Law? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While that case could be made, after looking at some of her other tweets, that are just as offensive, I am not so sure if her works meant anything other than what was intended.

      Yeah, I read them, and I didn't get that impression from them. In one she talks about a big stinky german guy sitting near her on an airplane. Some people have taken that as being anti-german. I took it as the guy probably talking loudly with a german accent so it was an obviously identifiable characteristic. The brevity of tweets makes it deceptively easy to assume the worst intent on the part of the writer.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:Another Case of Poe's Law? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You are reading way too much intelligence into her tweet ....

      Obviously I disagree. I look at her apology as evidence - it is a complete apology. Not one of those "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" passive-aggressive non-apologies that latent assholes and corporations use to defend their own wrong-headedness. It is an apology entirely consistent with my interpretation of the original tweet.

      "Words cannot express how sorry I am, and how necessary it is for me to apologize to the people of South Africa, who I have offended due to a needless and careless tweet. There is an AIDS crisis taking place in this country, that we read about in America, but do not live with or face on a continuous basis. Unfortunately, it is terribly easy to be cavalier about an epidemic that one has never witnessed firsthand."

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Another Case of Poe's Law? by Xolotl · · Score: 4, Informative

      Her apology pretty much says it right there: "a needless and careless tweet". If it was "darkly ironic" etc etc it wouldn't be "needless and careless".

      She's (was) a PR exec - writing heartfelt apologies is part of her job description. Then again, so is not creating PR disasters for her employer (which this was, even if it was indeed meant as a deep commentary on the lot of poor South Africans), so YMMV I suppose. Anyway, I find it hard to believe this was anything deep and meaningful with a history like this:

      http://www.buzzfeed.com/jenvesp/16-tweets-justine-sacco-regrets-hxg7

    5. Re:Another Case of Poe's Law? by operagost · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Compare this to the Duck Dynasty thing where the guy really had no sense of irony, the surface meaning of his words was the intended meaning.

      The irony is that you seem to believe you have intimate knowledge of what his intended meaning was.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:Another Case of Poe's Law? by Xolotl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The brevity of tweets makes it deceptively easy to assume the worst intent on the part of the writer.

      ... and puts additional responsibility on the author to choose their words carefully.

    7. Re:Another Case of Poe's Law? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Basically, her biggest mistake was using a hashtag. Her other offensive tweets weren't noticed because few people probably followed her (and the few that did wouldn't get so offended as to call for her to be fired). However, she included "#aids" in her tweet. This means that anyone who searched for "#aids" would see her tweet. As people who searched for that hashtag would tend to be those affected by or somehow interested in the subject, they would also likely get offended by a comment as stupid as "Going to Africa, hope I don't get AIDS, Oh, wait I'm white."

      She apparently made offensive comments relating to autism and other things also, but didn't use a hashtag. Had she left off the hashtag, her tweet would likely have gone unnoticed and she would have likely kept her job. In essence, she was fired because of one character (#).

      Which, of course, leads to the general rule about Twitter (or any Internet posting at all): Don't post what you wouldn't want your spouse, boss, co-workers, family, etc reading. Even if you think you're using a "private message/e-mail", assume that the message will be leaked out and become public. (How many "private e-mails" or "just sent to X" photos get leaked out to everyone?)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    8. Re:Another Case of Poe's Law? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      ...And ignore the first two paragraphs above. I hadn't seen the actual tweet (relied on my wife's account of what happened) but the article has a screenshot of the tweet and there's no hashtag. Someone else might have retweeted it and added the hashtag which poured fuel on the fire.

      The last paragraph remains true, though. Never post publicly what you wouldn't say to people face-to-face.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  11. In the old days by John+Allsup · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People called foxes vermin and hunted them with a pack of dogs.
    Now people call other people names and hunt them with a pack of other humans.

    Aside from that, the basic drive is the same.  It's a relic from our caveman days, so far as I'm concerned.

    --
    John_Chalisque
  12. The small-town phenomenom by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's something anyone who grew up in a small town understands: when you do something stupid in public, everybody will know about it. In a big city, if you make a fool of yourself at a bar, you'll be the laughingstock of the patrons for a couple weeks until someone else comes along. You'll be the butt of jokes from your friends for a while. But the world at large will be pretty much oblivious. In a small town it's different. Everyone in town will know someone who was there, and what would've been a miniscule fraction of the big city will be 90% of the small town. But it'll still mostly be shrugged off, because again everyone in town's been there. Anyone who rags on you too badly will have their own foray into foolishness brought up and bandied about again, and they'll shut up and let it drop. And individually you learn early on what kinds of things will merely make you look foolish vs. what things will cause serious town-wide outrage, and you avoid doing the latter kind.

    The Internet is more the small town than the big city. People assume that nobody will find out what they said or did in public, but the anonymity of the big city just isn't there. And the person in question is what makes a lot of these things such a big deal. We don't see a big flap over the thousands of stupid, racist, bigoted comments ordinary people make every day. In this case though, as with the "Duck Dynasty" case, it's not an ordinary person. It's someone who ought to know that their comments are being broadcast to a much larger audience, and who ought to know how those comments are going to be taken. And they go ahead and make them anyway. That's what makes these things go viral like they do.

  13. Stupid article, stupid author by wickerprints · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ms. Sacco deserved everything she got. Nothing more, nothing less. If you do something so overwhelmingly and obviously stupid as what she did, and then compounded that stupidity by getting on a plane and going offline for several hours, what do you expect is going to happen? The author of the article is just trying to twist this sordid tale into some kind of cautionary example of the excesses of "internet justice." Meanwhile, kids are killing themselves because they're being bullied for doing nothing other than being themselves. Where's the author's outrage over that? Ms. Sacco neither has the excuse of being a child, nor the defense of having done nothing to offend. If you do something so stupid that NOBODY is willing to defend it, then why should she not suffer the consequences? One should also consider that the kind of people who would even entertain making such offensive remarks in a public forum are not the kind of people who are so easily shamed. They tend to be sociopaths who end up hardening their self-image in response to the outrage. Don't weep for the likes of her.

    1. Re:Stupid article, stupid author by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The author of the article is just trying to twist this sordid tale into some kind of cautionary example of the excesses of "internet justice."

      Exactly. This is the author saying that people who have little power as individuals should not gang up to weild power as a group, after all, next time, it could be a wealthy person who is the target of the hate, and Forbes would not like that.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:Stupid article, stupid author by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You respond with outrage because it makes you feel good about yourself. I respond with apathy because I don't care. Comme ci comme ca.

      It's all about poor ego development. It makes people feel good to think that they are righting some wrong by attacking people like her, or like Paula Deen, or Phil Robertson, etc...

      It's dreary. I can see getting upset if someone is inciting violence or making threats, or even pushing for e.g. anti-gay legislation. That matters.

      What some random tweeter says? Who gives a fuck.

    3. Re:Stupid article, stupid author by Urkki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Based purely on this /. article's comment's, I'd say she deserves a medal for bringing attention to the AIDS problem in Africa... Also, do you think her apology is insincere, or do you just generally not believe in forgiving?

  14. Vapid by CodeArtisan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wow. I have mod points and want to use them all to negatively mod the "summary" to "Incoherent".

    1. Re:Vapid by NIK282000 · · Score: 2

      Why can't we use MOD points on articles yet? Maybe we could collectively bring the quality up a little.

      --
      Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  15. News Flash! by MarkvW · · Score: 2

    (1) PR professional goes viral to a degree that she only dreamed of before (but it's not pretty).
    (2) People talk about her comment.
    (3) People talk about people talking about her comment.
    (4) People talk about people talking about people talking about her comment.

  16. Being fired was the correct response regardless by al0ha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The point of her being fired has nothing to do with public outrage, hysteria, infotainment.

    This person is a highly paid corporate PR professional and her tweet showed that she is not that good at her job after all, thus being fired. My wife is a PR professional who would never make such as stupid mistake, because she's a professional to the core at all times.

    --
    Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
    1. Re:Being fired was the correct response regardless by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, you are right of course, the behavior was unprofessional. That doesn't mean that the reaction isn't disturbing.

      Just because the inciting behavior is unreasonable doesn't make the piling on reaction *rational*. It has more than a whiff of a mob turning on someone who is suddenly perceived as vulnerable.

      The people reacting to this act like they know all about this person. But do they? All they have to go on is one foolish comment. Many years ago, in the early 70s, my older teen sister volunteered in a program for intellectually disabled children -- this was at a time before this kind of service was common, or required for high school graduation. One day she remarked to one of her friends that she had to leave because it was time to go see "her retards." Word got back to one of the parents and my sister was banned from the program. Now I can understand the position of the parent defending her child, but is it reasonable for her to deprive her child of the support and help of someone he loved just because that person said something stupid?

      If there is one thing I've learned over the years it's that the fruits of self-righteousness are bitter. The instinct to become part of an avenging mob is no respecter of fact, context, circumstance or consequences. It is not to be trusted.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  17. Live by the crowd, die by the crowd by jd.schmidt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anonymous nobodies can say dumb thing all day long with lesser consequences because they have less to lose. If you are making your money in the public eye, you also suffer from its displeasure. There is no way around it. Also, everyone is a hypocrite when it comes to this stuff, people turn from supposed supporters of free speech, as if that should protect your job, to demanding resignations for saying the wrong thing all the time.

  18. Re:Or maybe... by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    PR person makes racist joke on social media? That isn't job job ending. That is a career ending move.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  19. Note: Twitter is public by Danathar · · Score: 2

    Why people seem to forget that twitter is PUBLIC is crazy.

  20. Who ? What ? by Pop69 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why should I care or even know about this ?

  21. Re:Or maybe... by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless of course you want to work for a company that agrees with whatever you said. Even if they are not openly racist, after the initial drama dies down there are plenty of companies that have management who buy into the idea that such things are liberal-pc-whatever in nature and thus hiring such a person is a quiet 'screw you' to a culture they don't approve of.

  22. Re:Heat map = population map by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering that majority of the people who have read or re-tweeted the post are from Europe or North America it would follow that the majority of outrage would also come from Europe or North America.

    Or maybe its just that the majority of twitter users come from Europe or North America.

  23. Re:What if she hates what is going on there? by no_go · · Score: 2

    As a PR professional she MUST take a really good look at what she says and writes.

    If there is even the slightest possibility that it might be mis-interpreted it WILL, and should be stated differently.

    Still a fail.

  24. Affluenza by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like the 1% has their own kind of epidemic going around

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  25. Re:Or maybe... by Deadstick · · Score: 2

    That is a career ending move.

    Not if she has any experience with duck calls.