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.
"Join us as we shutdown 4chan and prevent more pictures from being leaked."
Yeah, that is definitely going to prevent anyone from posting any more photos.
You're gonna need to provide some facts and numbers for that absurd claim.
Otherwise we assume you're not taking your crazy meds.
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?
Maybe you could post some fact or numbers too? Remember, we're talking about opportunities not outcomes.
They are all in a single place and mostly keeping to themselves. Do you really want that kind of people roaming around without a place made to accommodate their behavior?
It's like destroying a prison to stop crime.
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.
Sticking to what we can actually measure and not some airy, hand-wavey idea of what constitutes an opportunity, skills-matched cohorts of male and female employees show a wage and career security discrepancy in favour of men in almost any study you care to mention. That discrepancy skirts zero a but it conspicuously never flips around the other side.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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?
. 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.
Maybe it was an elaborate hoax to publicize 4chan by publicizing an elaborate hoax to attack 4cahn.
Did you know that men are roughly 50% of the population, but only 13% of elementary education teachers in the United States are men?
Help, help, we're being oppressed!!
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
You can't really believe that every single man who believes in "Men's Rights" is "dedicated to opposing introspection and protecting established norms at all costs."?
That's like believing that all women who are feminists believe 90% of men should be phased out.
Get some perspective.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
That's kind of like planting evidence of tax evasion on a convicted murderer.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
False. Completely false. Why do you persist in this nonsense?
Women, in the same career field as a man, almost always makes less. They only place it's close is in a wage controlled environments. Where a person doing X classification makes the same by contract. Even in those case women rise through the class slower then men.
This is a real problem. Why does this scare you? Probably for the same reason a woman wanting for all people to be equally made people on 4chan angry.
Did you listen to her speech? She talks about men and women.
She also talks about inequality men face as well as women.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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. They only place it's close is in a wage controlled environments. Where a person doing X classification makes the same by contract. Even in those case women rise through the class slower then men. This is a real problem. Why does this scare you?.
This is just not true. Once you factor in time & effort on the job, the gap nearly closes. Women choose to place domestic priorities higher than men. Why does this scare you?
Dark Reflection
It's approaching troll event horizon, with trolls trolling trolls who troll trolls trolling other trolls. Ridiculous.
On one hand, I'd welcome empirical evidence that black holes actually exist, even if it requires every troll on Earth to do it. OTOH, 4chan has spewed forth many notable elements of on-line culture, so its loss would be lamentable. Sorta.
I'm conflicted.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
While that's true, it's still not a simple issue. If you look at the whole it looks like a big, pervasive problem, but having worked in several jobs in financial positions I can tell you that none of them used gender as criteria for salary. If you were in position X, you made $Y regardless of your gender. So it's largely not the case that men make more than women who are equally qualified and employed.
So what's going on?
First, many women stop work to have children. This interrupts their career progress, resets their salary, and prevents them from ascending as high as men. This is the reason that women who stop work to raise children and later divorce still get alimony. There is also a perception that women will do this, of course, and that is a problem.
Second, the careers that men choose tend to pay more. A carpenter, an electrician, a plumber, an engineer, a doctor, a tool and die machinist, a computer programmer or administrator, etc. The careers that women choose tend to pay less. A teacher, an administrative assistant, a nurse, a librarian, medical data entry, child care. Now the reason for this is actually pretty complicated. Professions that men worked were paid a salary to support an entire family wife and kids. That amount of money was simply what a man cost, since any job he took necessarily had to support his family due to cultural standards of the day. If he wasn't getting paid that amount, then he could neither support his existing family, nor could he marry a woman and start a family. Professions that women worked were paid a salary to support a single person or possibly a single person with one child. Today, those salaries remain affected by those historic amounts due to market forces. That's why professional jobs designed to attract men have reasonably good salaries even if they largely didn't exist when the workplace was divided on gender lines (i.e., computer programmers).
The key to take away here is: women and men are voluntarily choosing their own professions and we still see a salary discrepancy. The professions they choose have salaries determined by market forces, which includes how people were paid in the past. Programs exist which encourage women to take college paths that lead to better paying careers, but in spite of the fact that women now consistently and significantly outnumber men in annual college enrollment numbers, men still outnumber women in technical and professional degrees and women are still not choosing degrees which result in better paying careers.
So who is to blame? On the one hand you have people saying that women don't make as much and that's a problem for society as a whole. Women are also not taken as authoritatively as men are, so men tend to get hired into positions of higher authority which, of course, pay more. On the other, you have people saying that women made voluntary choices that resulted in them earning less so they should bear the responsibility for the consequences of their own choices rather than expecting society to fix it for them.
Fundamentally, none these problems can be easily solved through government policy or regulation. Are we expecting the government to step in an force salaries for jobs to be increased or decreased? That you have to pay a teacher and an engineer the same? That's not equality. That's parity. Are we going to say that the woman who worked 5 years, quit 10 to raise kids, and then returns deserves the same salary and opportunities as a man who has worked for 15 years? How is that fair to devalue 10 years of relevant experience? What about the increasingly common situation where the man quits his job to raise the kids? Does he deserve the same considerations?
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
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)
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.
Solution is to legalize prostitution. The prohibition of prostitution creates an artificial scarcity that allows women to demand free drinks and meals in exchange for the possibility of sex.
Legalize prostitution and those women will be lowering their standards significantly in face of cheaper, market-regulated, and guaranteed sex.
Be careful of that broad brush you're painting with. My girlfriend is a feminist. She has exactly the same issues with what she considers a vocal minority within the feminist movement (much like the "all penis-in-vagina-sex-is-rape" crowd) that Emma has. What's the point of giving women empowerment over their own bodies if you're going to turn right around and shame back into a niqab? It's lunacy. Mainstream feminism, as opposed to the Fox News sensationalist headlines feminism, isn't about what *you* think it is. It's a tired trope, but the loudest 2-3% gets all the press for just about any group you can think of, and that 2-3% is generally batshit crazy.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
More than 19 out of 20 people killed on the job in America are men - are we interested in squaring that up as well?
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.