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.
The company that wants 4chan shut down also doesn't seem to exist; it looks like this was a publicity stunt by a social media agency.
http://www.theguardian.com/fil...
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
. By displaying the results front and center and tweeting about emmayouarenext.com's viral success, the campaign's organizers are perhaps more focused on promoting their own brand and services than issues of privacy and gender equality.
Forget the brand, forget the event, and forget this firm ever existed. We're talking about a fairly controversial site but what needs to be respected is the tenacity and seemingly endless realm of their users. after a cat was abused, they tracked down a fourteen year olds full name and address in under 24 hours. They tracked down a bomb threat in 2007 to a student in a High School in Pflugerville, Texas in under 6 hours and have a laundry list of relatively high profile internet attacks. Both Verizon and AT&T have banned the site at some time during its existence. Speaking as someone who works in hosting, What this ad agency fails to realize is once you become a target of 4chan we questionlessly invoke our right to terminate your service at any time. Its either a chargeback at worst on our credit card processing or we watch everything from signup to shared/vps hosting go up in flames.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I agree that attacking 4chan is a bad idea, but the 4chan problem users aren't the ones who keep their behavior on 4chan. They are the ones who think that, since they think X, anyone who doesn't agree with them must be attacking them and thus must be dealt with using the harshest of threats (including bodily injury and/or death) and hacking attempts. If anyone supports their target or opposes them, they become a target as well.
When you need to resort to death threats and intimidation to "win" your disagreement, then you've not only lost the argument but have moved into the areas of harassment or worse.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
This has been allowed for in the various studies of the subject. Even among childless women there is a significant discrepancy in salaries for similar jobs. Thoug, from one article in the Economist, the discrepancy almost disappears for childless women not in any relationship.
This, as has been pointed out, the discrepancy never flips the other way, as would be the case in a truly fair environment, In such an environment, necessarily finite studies should show results randomly either side of equality.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Except that the latest recession has been called the Mancession for a reason. More women than men are working, and making more money.
More women are earning degrees at all levels. Women are CHOOSING to work fewer hours. They choose quality of life because they CAN. Men do not have this option. Women simply have more choice of what they do.
Today's feminist propaganda/dogma has noting to do with reality. Victim mentality. Total absolution from personal responsibility.
That discrepancy skirts zero a but it conspicuously never flips around the other side.
First, about this claim, you're just Wrong. Don't make claims you can't back. Construction workers & supervisors, painters, teachers, bakers, bartenders, servers... all jobs that women make more than men. Though "hooker" is not listed in Forbes, I'd guess female sex workers make more than men too.
It is true that women make less than men, but the OP very specifically stated opportunities, not outcomes. The salary rankings are outcomes. The Pew Research Center produced much different numbers (.84 up to .93 per 1.00; .93 is for younger women) than the white house (.77 per 1.00) just by ranking hourly wages instead of weekly wages. This brings in all the part-time workers and full-time workers that work 35+ hours into the same boat as those that work 40 hours+. Furthermore, what research like the white house study fails to account for is things like: 39% of women took a significant amount of time off work to care for their family, 42% have reduced their hours for the same, 27% have quit altogether; while only 24% of men have taken a significant amount of time off work for family. You don't even need the research that shows large breaks hurt your salary. Anybody that has taken a break from work knows that. Perhaps that is why the .93 cents per dollar for younger women; they haven't yet had the chance to drop work for family?
Obviously I have not proven the OP claim, that there are equal or more opportunities for women, the hopefully I have shown that the issue is not so open & shut as you think. Nobody, to my knowledge, is counting Opportunities. Nobody here has even defined them. But with 42% of women not taking full advantage of their opportunity to work full time once they have a job, compared to only 27% percent of men, the argument seems plausible enough to warrant some thought.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Huff post version, no paywall- references both the American Association of University Women and US Dept of Labor studies that showed the 23 cent distinction nearly vanishes when you control for Job Role, and the number of women working full time.