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?
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.
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?
That's kind of like planting evidence of tax evasion on a convicted murderer.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Or that she didn't have any interest in giving some random jackasses attention.
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.
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.