in which she asked men to bow down to feminism.
Careful. Your bias is showing.
The Emma Watson nude photo leak scandal has been exposed as a spoof - by a gang of spoofers. A mysterious "marketing firm" calling itself Rantic has been fingered as the architect of a fake threat to leak nude images of the Harry Potter starlet. The internet was set alight this week by rumours that 4chan nutjobs were planning …
That wasn't censorship. That was ratelimiting! Half the threads in half the boards don't need to be about GamerGate. If somebody barges into your room and hollers GAMERGATE GAMERGATE OMG 15,000 times an hour and you eject him from your room for being annoying I wouldn't call that censorship either.
The shit only kicked off on all boards after mods started mass deletion / banning with no explanation, prior to that it was just multiple threads on /v/ & /pol/. They could have made a sticky thread a month ago to "contain" the GG posting.
The shit storm lasted until moot final broke cover to admit he'd decided to fuck people over in favor of his new venture capital friends.
I've seen the 8chan, it's interesting and there's no reason not to have more boards out there (even thousands, as seems to be the case). But like the Donkey person above said, the "censorship" on 4chan was multiple threads on the same topics, and a lot of spacetime wasted on /v/, which spilled onto /pol/. That pastebin chat log floating around 8chan the other day looked fake too.
"You cannot read.
It's "fappening" not "flappening". You should look up fap on the Urban Dictionary."
There is reading and then there is textual exegesis, you read well sir.
Any mention of flaps would be a sexist disgusting thing to say and the author ought to take no clitical <sic> acclaim for "wot" he wrote.
Hmmm, and you dear chap should watch more carry on films.
And bring back pubic hanging, scribbling and thirding and all the other sorts of terrible things. Or alternatively force them to use Windows 8 with an imprecise low battery bluetooth mouse. Make them eat English breakfasts 3 times a day whilst drinking cold Italien ristrettos.
Publicity stunts can be fun whilst retaining a sense of humour but this one went just a little too far. (and now they are trying desperately to wriggle out of their shitty situation).
I wonder if 4chan will also sue them. ( I presume that dear Emma's lawyers are already writing up the initial draft)
I assume that someone checked Rantic (autocorrect wants me to put Rancid...) didn't actually seize the domain in question, i.e. that they were always the host of the original site? If they didn't, that's a pretty poor effort to raise publicity and I expect them to have the sort of publicity that they really don't want in the near future...
4chan don't sue, they generally have people taking the law into their own hands and dispensing their own justice if they get pissed off enough and the 'tards assemble.... generally starting with pwned website, then pwned every other domain that company uses, then moves off to extreme pr0n subscription, midnight pizza deliveries, then dead animal slung over the roofs of the company owners houses, as Anon never forgives and never forgets. Then they promptly forget and go raid somthing else :p
@Mycho for letting us see what all the fuss was about. I'm reminded of wontsomebodythinkofthechildren.com
Much ado about nothing. Let them pretend to have naked pictures of the woman and let's watch the internet dissolve in nowtrage. Maybe we need a new word for it? Suggestions please. I'll get the ball rolling with "nowtnet"
Seen all the pics already, blah blah. They aren't that good. There is plenty of way better stuff out there in 1080p to "fap" to. Just goes to show that "celebrities" or whatever the definition of that may be more "friends" or more "money" than you might have they are still ugly just like the rest of the people when they don't have their makeup on. Tired of it all? Quit your factory job canning tuna fish or mopping the floor and simply go to a few auditions. But yeah, if you got some credit card numbers or something from their iCloud then maybe.....
@logistix looks like a lot of very uptight people around today. I haven't seen any of the latest pictures but I'm not going to be so prudish as to say I wouldn't look, be unsurprised at how unspectacular they are and move on. I do remember the Paris Hilton grumble flick. Now that was funny!
In terms of being nasty to the people involved - yep, don't agree with it – but the tabloids are often a lot crueller. As you point out there are a few lessons for us all to learn about who we trust and with what.
Because 4chan consists of thousands of anonymous accounts and so can't be said to be taking a collective stand on a particular action just because one person posted something to the board.
If Dave Fictionalman posts to 4chan that he's going to streak at the Brit Awards, then Dave Fictionalman did it, 4chan didn't, and if he goes for a pasty later there should be headlines saying "Greggs threaten Brit Awards with streaking"
Never mind the fact that even if anyone on 4chan had the ability to do something like this, getting them to agree on any one issue for long enough to carry out a co-ordinated attack on anything without devolving into a sea of reaction images and ad hominem would be akin to herding the world's largest cattery. It's like mainstream tabloid journalism doesn't even bother to investigate sources or something!
The EmmaYouAreNext.com URL now redirects to rantic.com; where it's explained that it was a publicity stunt with the aim of shutting down 4chan and also an open letter to the POTUS saying:
"" We have been hired by celebrity publicists to bring this disgusting issue to attention. The recent 4chan celebrity nude leaks in the past 2 months have been an invasion of privacy and is also clear indication that the internet NEEDS to be censored. Every Facebook like, share & Twitter mention will count as a social signature -- and will be one step closer to shutting down www.4chan.org. "
If anything will get 4chan to agree on a single issue; then that's probably it. I reposted it so that rantic didn't get the clicks and to save a little effort.
NSA is pretty far fetched. The FBI is at least plausible though.
> Set up website incriminating 4chan
> Reveal site as hoax and call for 4chan to be banned
> Await DDOS from angry b-tards
> Arrest DDOSers
> Make claims to the mainstream media about 'cracking down on those nasty guys at 4chan who leaked all those nude celebrity selfies'
> Enjoy PR coup
Just ONCE she could have thrown in the word "Egalitarianism"
The Word Feminist can never mean Egality unless you're a Fox Viewer
or under thirty (yeah I went there).
Time for anyone who's serious (not a one, they're all getting their 15 minutes)
it's time for a change. Meanwhile real people will continue to suffer as hollywood
and our politicians dine on the proceeds of their weak and empty words.
Well congratulations commentards.
I had expected more of you, but it seems we've just as many ignorant biased individuals who would rather be told what to think by others than think something through themselves. Sure they'd be some, but no it seems to be about the same ratio.
So I say this:
Firstly there are issues, lots of them:
There are areas where men are discriminated against, and serious ones. The UK has one publicly available resource that deals with male victims of sexual abuse, and its funded by a charity. despite the fact that an estimated 15% of men will have to go through this at some point in their lives. there is nothing ( that I'm aware of ) for men who suffer domestic abuse ( 10% - again estimated - but these are published figures ).
Women still earn less than men, are still less likely to be in positions at the top of the 'career chain'. over 80% of women respondents stated they received verbal sexual abuse on a daily basis.
Actually from my point of view a lot (not all) of these issues are, and should be, looked at as social issues, and not gender issues.
But screaming about how the other 'side' is wrong/bad/stupid ? nope that just stops people from listening to you.
Sure you can be a troll, but no-one sensible is going to listen to you. Accept your bias, announce it, and then join in the debate, and listen. Perhaps then we'll get somewhere.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Women still earn less than men"
If this is the 77c in the $ argument*, then you really need to read the entire report - it explains why this isn't evidence of inequality in pay. Women earn less than men over their career. This is not the same as there being discrimination in pay.
A man earns $400 a week. A woman doing the same job at the same company earns $350 a week. This is inequality, yes? This is what the numbers suggest, surely.
Except: The man works 40hr a week, the woman earns 35hr a week - they are both paid at the same rate: $10 an hour. Where is the discrimination? Where is the inequality? As long as both can work 40 hours if they want or 35 hours, and they are paid the same rate, there is no discrimination. Yet they are paid different ammounts because one choses to work 40 hours, the other works 35 hours.
This is why the 77c in 1$ is misleading: Total pay, not hourly rate. And that's not even going near the issue of differences in employers, benefits in kind and the favourite: Salary Sacrifice schemes!
Study into hourly rates, strangely, indicate there is very little in the way of pay gaps, with women potentially earning $1.02 per 1$ a man earns, on hourly rates (this mostly comes from part time work, though).
As to career prospects...
Edwina Curry put this very well: If you set targets for appointing women to post then you will not get the best person for that job**.
A translation of this is simply: If you appoint a woman to post who was not the best candidate then she will not be as good as her peers. When it comes to promotions, she will logically lag behind as she isn't the best candidate, and may never be so. This will haunt her through her career as she will always be behind others, who were appointed based on their merits, not their gender.
And industry has been under pressure to appoint more women into 'male dominate' roles: A PR stunt that doesn't do anyone any good.
*I have stuck to using $ as the report most quoted in the apparent pay gap arguments is a US report by the treasury and so is in $'s.
**clarification: This refers to appointing a candidate due to gender rather than merit. This is not to say a woman can't be the best candidate.
I go into a threat, not run away from it - I call it the moment it's stated. The first couple of times that gets rough, but then you get a reputation that threatening you comes at a cost, and the number of object lessons you have to provide decreases.
You can't win them all - but even losing is good if it costs the other party a lot more than they originally planned to invest.
"Respect" takes many forms. It's not necessarily incompatible with lust, and certainly not with fantasy. Once you add the word "objectification" in there it becomes harder to justify, but still the first definition of "respect" I get from Google is:
"a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements."
- which doesn't automatically rule it out.
It looks as though there were multiple layers of Hoax here. Does Rantic really exist? Apparently not. And how do you prove any name on the internet is real?
Oh, it's on one of those business-name websites, is it? Most of those sites don't check the data they show you, and don't update, and only care about the fees from ever more dodgy advertisers. Where I am able to check, most of the businesses are a couple of years dead.
If it exists on the Internet, there is porn of it. That's something I get told often enough. It's as easy to believe that if it exists on the Internet it is a lie intended to sell advertising.
(Incidentally, I don't feel any urge to view naked selfies of Emma Watson. I know she isn't Hermione Granger, but I feel as though I have watched her grow up. And if 4chan were taking on Hermione. I would pay for tickets. It'd be better than Quidditch.)
Does Rantic really exist?
There's some evidence on the Wikipedia discussion page for the deletion of the (now deleted) FoxWeekly page to support the theory that Rantic / FoxWeekly is a single person. That seems entirely plausible.
I love the implication that they were hired by celebrity publicists to bring attention to the disgusting issue of leaking naked photos, by threatening to leak naked photos.
Unless one of the celebrities these publicists purportedly represent is Emma Watson, I'd say that's pretty much the dumbest way to go about solving that job.
"Every Facebook like, share & Twitter mention will count as a social signature -- and will be one step closer to shutting down . . ."
"Social signatures" are the equivalent of a country - any country's - registered legal voters and are sufficient to overturn constitutions, Magna Carta's, prior restraint laws, laws against theft of property and services, laws against presumption of guilt without proof, and the like.
Who knew governments would act in such a manner? Other than the United States, that is . . .