Slashdot Mirror
Emma Watson Leaked Photo Threat Was a Plot To Attack 4chan
ideonexus writes: After Emma Watson gave a speech on the need for feminism (video) to the United Nations, 4chan users threatened to release nude photos of the Harry Potter star in retaliation, setting up the emmayouarenext.com website with a countdown clock. Now it has been revealed that the site was an elaborate hoax intended publicize a movement to shut down 4chan.
You're gonna need to provide some facts and numbers for that absurd claim.
Otherwise we assume you're not taking your crazy meds.
FYI, the debate is about turning "vast majority" to "all" and removing the "nearly".
So you admit that it's all about tinkering round the edges, not achieving some paradigm shift or anything major, then. Frankly, not really UN material.
You know, otherwise it's like having: ...
Right to self-determination on most cases.
Right to liberty, usually.
Right to due process of law, for the vast majority.
Right to freedom of movement, in almost all circumstances.
Right to freedom of thought, except when it's inconvenient.
In practice, that's pretty much all anyone gets.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Have you ever considered that many women often choose being a mother instead of focusing on a demanding career?
Also, in other categories where men get the short end of the stick statistically, do you automatically assume its because of some big conspiracy?
Or that she didn't have any interest in giving some random jackasses attention.
False. Completely false. Why do you persist in this nonsense?
Women, in the same career field as a man, almost always makes less....
I've heard this a lot, and have seen a lot of statistics that show both ways, depending on the data view and metrics considered. But there seems to be a stronger opinion for the side that you mention in the quote above, at least in the public eye. So, and I really do want to know: If this was true, why don't multinational or traded companies only hire women? If a woman can preform as well or better than a man, and almost always makes less, then it would be folly for any board not to hire only women. Reducing the labor expense by 10-20%+ while maintaining the same productivity would put any large company way out in front competitively.
It's this simple question that makes me think that it's actually more complex than that, and that the versions of the reports showing it are ignoring non-gender factors. (hours worked in a week, time off for children, etc)