55,000 Sign Twitter Abuse Petition After Jane Austen Campaigner Threats 421
AlistairCharlton writes "A petition campaigning for Twitter to improve its measures against online abuse has received more than 55,000 signatures in two days. The petition was set up in support of feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez, who faced a torrent of abusive tweets, including threats to rape and kill her, after successfully campaigning for a woman's picture to appear on a banknote; Jane Austen will appear on £10 notes from 2017."
Zimmerman? (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as it apples to everyone.
http://twitchy.com/2013/07/13/twitter-lynch-mob-threatens-to-kill-george-zimmerman/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about Sarah Palin then? Or is that "free speech" that need protecting ?
Re: (Score:3)
Snarkyness is ok. Murder-death-kill-threats are never.
Why is this discussion eve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Zimmerman? (Score:4, Informative)
The issue with the Criado-Perez mob is a bit different. You can't argue that you were nasty in the heat of the moment because it is very hard to show that you were that passionate about Austen making in on a 20 quid note. And it is quite, quite easy to show that their threats were made out of sheer spite and malice. This is not as easy to show in the Zimmerman mob.
After a couple of beers AND a lot of teary "documentaries" I might have joined the Zimmerman mob myself. I think that highly unlikely due to my self-restraint but definitely not impossible. But no matter how shit-faced drunk I were I would NEVER resort to threaten a woman no matter who or why with rape and murder. The line which I don't cross is quite a bit away from that.
So while both cases are similar and both cases are wrong, the culpability is a bit different. Which is why we need to remember to put "mens rea" back into our laws(even the stupid knee-jerk ones) because the spirit in which the offense was done in should reflect the punitive action.(See that kid who has been in jail for 6 months over threatening a killing spree "lol jk" before he even got his day in court)
Also a little bit of critical thinking would help to find where the different nuances in those cases. One-liners only win discussions in Hollywood. Which makes Twitter so especially pointless.
Re: (Score:3)
As long as it apples to everyone. http://twitchy.com/2013/07/13/twitter-lynch-mob-threatens-to-kill-george-zimmerman/ [twitchy.com]
It applies to everyone. It also applies in this case.
In all fairness the discussion if this is against Twitter's TOS or not is a moot point. Threatening somebody verbally or via Twitter with death and bodily harm is an offense in most jurisdictions and should be prosecuted as such. The problem is that jurisdictions have lost all sense of proportion and forgotten about "mens rea". Although the latter is also a concept lost on our little-esteemed lawmakers.
Is it ok to sentence a particularily bad troll to
Re: (Score:2)
The real matter is that this is a pattern. And the pattern is lack of self-restraint while online. And that is a matter beyond specific events or specific people. And that is the matter that should be discussed.
Some argue that the general anonymity on the internet is what causes this lack of restraint. I would argue that while it is not the immediate cause it does facilitate unref
Re:Zimmerman? (Score:4, Insightful)
Haters gotta hate. Might as well let them rant on the Tweeters so we at least know who the haters are, than trying to hide them. If you are going to start deleting all they misogynist comments, how about deleting all the misandrist ones, too, including the ones from haters like Joy Behar and Catherine MacKinnon?
Interestingly, my spell checker knows all about misogyny and its variations, but doesn't acknowledge the existance of misandry at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What we want to do is hang him anyway.
BTW. Hispanics are only white on government forms. the media has ALWAYS separated them from the evil white man. Except when they want to paint him as an "Evil white man".
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. That sure is him just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Re: (Score:3)
It really depends on what exactly "starting a fight" constituted. Yes, provocation can prevent you from claiming self-defense later, but it would also need to be proved (i.e. once you claim self-defense, the prosecution will have to prove that you are not entitled to it because you provoked the attack).
In this particular case, they didn't even bother, because merely following someone around does not constitute provocation, and that's pretty much all that we know for sure about what happened that night. It c
Re:Zimmerman? (Score:5, Informative)
The national media didnt "imply" his guilt by doing anything other than report the sequence of events
... while fudging them, by e.g. omitting the question from the 911 operator asking for Trayvon's race, but broadcasting Zimmerman's answer ("he looks black"), to make him look like a racist. And don't even get me started on how they plastered the front pages with a photo of Trayvon as a kid, implying that it's what he looked like when he died. Ironically, we have found out that it actually skewed the witnesses' testimony, since when one of them said that Zimmerman was on top of Martin, and defense asked how she knew, she said that "big guy was on top" - and then, after getting grilled about it, it came up that her assessment of which guy was big was based on that kid photo of Martin (in reality, he was the bigger one).
So yeah, it was totally unbiased reporting all around.
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's still cavemen in 2013?
I think the current Slashdot quote is appropriate:
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. -- Albert Einstein
Re: (Score:2)
I think the current Slashdot quote is appropriate: Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. -- Albert Einstein
I prefer this one (possibly stolen and probably misquoted from some slashdotter's sig):
Imagine how smart the average person is. Now realise that half of all people are dumber than that.
s/smart/enlightened.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When I argue mean versus average, I can never tell which half of the IQ population I am on. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I figured that out one day and assumed anybody who ever looked at a gaussian curve of IQ thought the same thing. Draw a line down the middle. The half on the left are not even of average intelligence.
Now make a small circle on the right most bit. You are here. Next time you think "Fuck, is everyone stupid?!?" remember this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure. The criticisms came in the form of threats of murder and rape. I doubt the people slinging the mud know who Jane Austen was.
I also doubt this is a rabid mob of Bronte-sisters fanbois.
If I wanted to be crass and idiotic I would resort to applying a quote that has been attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt:
Women are like tea bags. You never know how strong they are until you put them in hot water.
This is a crass and idiotic statement because it applies to men and women equally. So break out the popcorn and watch how the idotic seemingly adolescent 21 year old guy that got nicked will be tearfully pleading for mercy in front of a co
What's the big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would you abuse someone for trying to get a woman on a banknote? I can't comment for the UK, but in Australia we've had the Queen on a note since forever, and Edith Cowan on the $50 since the 90s. Some people need to realise that it isn't 1678 any more.
Re: (Score:3)
Because idiots think it's some kind of feminazi conspiracy to force men off bank notes and turn everything into an act of sexual harassment. Just wait, even in these very comments there will be people telling her she has no right not to be threatened with rape and if she can't handle trolls on Twitter she should get off the internet.
For what it's worth we have the Queen too, but she doesn't really count since she isn't there on merit. When they decided to change the only note with a woman on the other side
Re: (Score:3)
TBH I think the issue about the bank notes themselves is fairly peripheral to all this. The "people" (for want of a better word) sending these abusive tweets probably couldn't care less about who's on the back of their money, they just simply hate women and so will take any opportunity to threaten, belittle and abuse them anonymously. This article in the Telegraph kinda gives some insight: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10208418/Twitter-abuse-What-women-hating-trolls-really-believe.html [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, because I think the whole gender thing is completely irrelevant, also. The issue is about censorship and when something crosses the line into illegality. Especially online, where something written may not have the same context or implications of something physically written in real life. I mean, seriously, who among us has not been insulted or even threatened many times on the internet in the last couple of decades? It doesn't matter what your skin color, gender, sexuality, religion, nationality, or
Re: (Score:2)
couldn't care less
Jesus H Christ! Someone actually got this right, instead of writing "I could care less", or it's bastard cousin "I could give a damn".
Sorry to interrupt. Just needed to get that out.
Re: (Score:2)
couldn't care less
Jesus H Christ! Someone actually got this right, instead of writing "I could care less", or it's bastard cousin "I could give a damn".
Sorry to interrupt. Just needed to get that out.
99% of British people will say "couldn't". "I could care less" is an Americanism (Americanizm?).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Putting a WRITER on bank notes is weird. Stamps fine, but money should have Statesmen on them.
The queen is on the other side. The current £10 note has Charles Darwin on it, but the figure is replaced every 10 years or so.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/current/default.aspx [bankofengland.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, the British had a woman on all banknotes and coins.
Re: (Score:3)
Edith Cowan on the $50 since the 90s.
You need to look at some smaller notes [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Well the Queen is on the front of all the Bank of England notes, and Elizabeth Fry is on the back of the 5 pound note. What I don't understand is why there wasn't any controversy about Adam Smith being on the back of the 20 pound note given he is the darling of the right wing and Scottish to boot.
Re: (Score:2)
Queen Liz has achieved a lot of things, most of which were possible only because of the family she was born into and the intelligence she inherited.
Many other people (almost all otheres on the banknotes, in fact) have achieved lots of things, most of which were only possible because of the family they are born into and the intelligence they inherited.
Elizabeth has been a statesperson (advisor and figurehead) since 1952. Even the most ardent republican - and I think that every country has one or more royal f
Re: (Score:3)
Ignoring the censorship stuff... (Score:5, Funny)
in support of feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez, who faced a torrent of abusive tweets, including threats to rape and kill her, after successfully campaigning for a woman's picture to appear on a banknote;
Holy shit, man! What the fuck is this? Welcome to Iran, now available in places other than Iran.
Seriously? (Score:3)
Rape and death threats over pushing for a woman's face on a banknote? Even if you're not fond of feminism, that's overreacting quite a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily seriously ... feminism is the favourite topic of trolls.
Why is twitter involved? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why is twitter involved? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they don't want someone to have to go to the courts and actually prove that anything happened or was intended. They want to be able to hit a little button on a message and force businesses to supersede the process and make determinations themselves about the content and intent of conversation.
If someone makes a threat on your life that you have reasonable and plausible cause to fear as legitimate, then go to the police. It's already a crime. I don't like the idea of Twitter stepping in and taking on that role any more than I liked the idea of Youtube replacing the court system to deal with DMCA legal complaints by facilitating copyright complaints *themselves* (think, someone wrongly claiming rights to content in your video and being granted the right to put ads on your videos and receive money from them without Youtube giving you the opportunity to address the situation in court, as per the DMCA process).
Everyone cares about free speech and nobody honestly thinks anyone should have to put up with _serious_ actual threats (note, this is different from harassment or "verbal abuse") . . . but how do you properly deal with one while not overstepping onto the other? And do you trust a business and a couple people clicking a "I don't like this comment you guise!" button to make the call?
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It does seem weird to have an author on currency, but whatever.
Well, it would be more fitting to put great financiers that benefited society on their currency.
They just haven't been able to come up with any suitable candidates yet.
Problem is always the same. (Score:5, Insightful)
The inherent problem with things like this are always with making sure that you don't infringe upon free speech -- hyperbole, sarcasm, irony, humor, and rudeness -- and only get involved in situations where realistic threats are legitimately intended and made. I understand this is in the UK, but do people really want a "zero-tolerance"/TSA style "everything ever uttered is suspicious and must be investigated and vetted" approach? Further, there are already relevant laws in most places to deal with things like this, so . . . how about we leave it at that instead of a business and a mob of users superseding it?
I often feel people simply aren't prepared to handle the internet. As if most of us haven't been on the receiving end of "abuse" online? Haven't been "attacked" or even threatened? Or told that they should be killed? Ever read youtube comments? How about the comment section on any news article that Matt Drudge links to? How about if someone "feels threatened" (or simply offended) by something? We see a lot of that in the real world, as it is. People being punished for something, not because of what they said or the intentions behind it, but how some busy-body "received it"? Does it apply across the board? Is it, as the article's commentary seems to imply, only an issue for "women"?
Hell, have I crossed the line, simply for having the wrong genitalia and not simply jumping on the bandwagon of support for this? (Because, yes, my concerns about people's freedom of speech and people not taking everything seriously and as a threat or offense totally means that I'm in favor of people being threatened and stalked and physically abused... right?).
This all goes back to that whole thing with the MySpace girl that was tricked/harassed (verbally) by neighbors (including adults) until she committed suicide. Or that Youtube girl who committed suicide after her escapades with a grown man brought judgement and insults from people at school both before and after she committed suicide. Yeah, it was harassment and bullying, but we also acknowledge that words don't directly force you to harm yourself. We all hate that bitch and her family for what she did to that poor girl and the consensus seems to be that most of the world wished harm on her. . . but that is distinct from using the law to determine when and why to make exceptions. That being a meany-head is suddenly a crime. That free speech isn't so free, any more. That my thin-skin or lack of a support-group around me is your fault. And those events caused a lot of frustration on Slashdot, too -- because people found themselves so angry at what happened and the idea of someone "getting way with it" . . . . yet opposed to infringing on people's rights to express thoughts. Even shitty ones.
In other words, here too, people need to back the fuck up from "wow, that's shitty -- of course we should do something about it!" and take the time to consider the greater impact of some institutionalized response.
Re:Problem is always the same. (Score:5, Informative)
As if most of us haven't been on the receiving end of "abuse" online? Haven't been "attacked" or even threatened?
The law is fairly clear. If you make a specific threat against someone and it isn't clearly a joke then it doesn't matter if you intended to carry it out, if you had the means to or if the person felt threatened. To be absolutely clear feeling threatened or offended is not enough, there has to be a specific and seemingly serious threat.
Yeah, it was harassment and bullying, but we also acknowledge that words don't directly force you to harm yourself.
I doubt very much those people chose to harm themselves. They were clearly driven to it by mental anguish due to bullying. Some of us may be able to shrug that stuff off like a Vulcan but the effect of sustained psychological abuse on normal people is quite well documented. Some of the most effective torture doesn't involve any physical harm to the victim.
For years now there has been a campaign to recognize mental illness as being the same as physical illness. It's not a sign of weakness or a feeble mind, it's the way the human brain works. Apparently they still have a long way to go convincing people.
Re: (Score:2)
The inherent problem with things like this are always with making sure that you don't infringe upon free speech -- hyperbole, sarcasm, irony, humor, and rudeness -- and only get involved in situations where realistic threats are legitimately intended and made.
No, the inherent problem is people who think that, because it's on the internet, they can get away with threatening behaviour by dressing it up as a free speech issue; "hey dude, I was just expressing my hyperbole/sarcasm/irony/humor/rudeness/whatever".
Like for example, one of the guys quoted in this article (thanks to deains [slashdot.org] for the link in another thread) Twitter abuse: What women-hating trolls really believe - Telegraph [telegraph.co.uk]; "She would know these men wouldn’t actually come and rape her. They don’
Re: (Score:2)
I've been the subject of abuse online and offline. Some abuse can be shrugged off. If someone replies to my comment telling me that I'm an idiot and all of my viewpoints are garbage, I'll care about it for about one nanosecond. That's all Some Random Commenter I Don't Know deserves.
On the flip side, there are some people who will start to repeatedly harass you online over and over. I had one woman who would harass me on Twitter and on my blog. Then she harassed my wife as well. She has a history of ha
Re: (Score:3)
For any (large) group communication space, there is always a need for (some) moderation. See http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2005/05/a-group-is-its-own-worst-enemy.html [codinghorror.com] for some discussion for instance.
Imagine a line representing freeness of speech, with 0% at one end and 100% at the other end (the word freeness here meaning lack of any restrictions). Where on that line would you put a cross for the optimum value of free speech? There are no countries in the world (or any society though history) that al
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is run by assholes (Score:5, Interesting)
A couple of years ago, a user by the name of @goferet was sending regular rape and death threats to women. I saved links to 8 of the rape threats and 2 of the death threats, and contacted Twitter support.
They responded that his actions did not violate their terms of service. I pointed them directly to the terms of service page, and the specific mention of threats.
They didn't see a problem with what he was saying. Specifically things like he was planning to climb in their windows at night and rape them, some of them past rape victims who were campaigning for better investigations and fairer treatment of victims.
I thought maybe it was just the one idiot in support I was getting, but even the @support account didn't think anything of it.
What eventually did stop him making the threats was that I contacted people that he was associated with on Twitter and suggested they read his feed directly, so they could see what he was doing in his mentions, outside of the regular feed they saw. There was some disgust, and one person who knew him got him to finally shut his mouth.
Obviously there was an element that could have been "Leave it to the police", especially when some of the people he was attacking lived in the same city. But since Twitter was ignoring their *own* policies to let him threaten other users it was pretty vile on their parts.
If you don't like the picture (Score:3)
I'm really surprised at what people can get worked up on.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. In an age where cash is not that necessary, and you can put pretty much whatever picture you want on your credit card, I am surprised people care either way.
Feminist: "I want a woman on a bank note!"
Me: Srsly?
Misogynist: "I don't want a woman on a bank note!"
Me: Srsly?
Oh the humanity! (Score:2)
Re:Oh the humanity! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Across the whole of the earth, I often wonder which dominates: good or evil?"
My personal belief? Good dominates but evil is louder.
Need a little more Sense and Sensibility... (Score:2)
...and little less Pride and Prejudice, I think. Perhaps if we tried some Persuasion...
Re:In fairness (Score:5, Informative)
In even more fairness, 90% of everything is crap.
Re: (Score:2)
In even more fairness, 90% of everything is crap.
Which makes "of" the only non-crappy part of your comment (and mine).
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, for escalating degrees of elitism, that is absolutely true.
Re:In fairness (Score:5, Insightful)
...Jane Austen is just awful.
Then, frankly you have no idea what you're talking about. Well maybe you do. But I've yet to meet anyone who says what you did and does.
If you're reading e.g. Pride and Prejudice as a romance novel then you're basically missing out on most of what's there. There's a lot more there. If you look under the surface even slightly you will see a rather bleaker and very insightful social commentary. There's more to it than that as well. There's interesting observations and reflections on family interaction too. At the most basic level, it seems that parents will never cease to be an embarrassment to teenage children and vice versa.
And he's pretty much the 20th Century equivalent.
Fuck no.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It does not matter what messages it contains, the writing is awful.
It could be the best social commentary ever written, but the writing is still awful.
I am not sure why the writing styles of so many writers that English Lit majors adore are so terrible to read. I think it is some sort of hipsterish bullshit.
I understand the need for history and seeing how the novel as a work evolved, but some of these writers seemed to be trying for Vogon poetry.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It could be the best social commentary ever written, but the writing is still awful.
Would you care to expand on that? Ifound the writing to be very pleasent, especially pleasingly terse without being stucatto. Can you give some examples, quotes, etc of things you don't like?
Austen is certainly not one to go into very long descriptive passages.
I am not sure why the writing styles of so many writers that English Lit majors adore are so terrible to read.
No idea. I didn't study English Lit beyond GCSE level a
Re: (Score:2)
No idea. I didn't study English Lit beyond GCSE level and to be honest what we did in my school barely qualifies as "studying
And for the record what we studied was some random bits of shakespeare (midsummer night's dream, IIRC) and 1984. I think that was basically about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Stevenson's The Weir of Hermiston. It's unfinished, in a way that makes you cringe approaching the non-end. It has lots of real Vogon poetry style passages because Stevenson relied on his editor to trim the purple prose bits, and the Ex was seriously disappointed that she couldn't find Hermiston anywhere on her map of Pern.
Re:In fairness (Score:5, Insightful)
Pride and Prejudice was written in 1813. The majority of its style is simply what was commonplace at the time amongst the literate elite; indeed, most English-language writing held echoes of the same manner of elocution until the later half of the twentieth century when it had become strictly a formal mode of communication and literature was reinvented to be more casual. The style reflects the content of the subject matter.
I would highly recommend working your way up to understanding a thing or two about literature before trying to pass such sweeping judgements on it. Literary studies, and indeed most of the Humanities, are concerned with history; to try and pull them apart or to focus only on the present is to completely fail to understand and ignore most of the greatest books ever written. It really does not look good to make such brazen statements.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of its style is simply what was commonplace at the time amongst the literate elite; indeed, most English-language writing
Note that you've just used a semicolon, and put an "indeed" right after it to boot, without having to have your forehead tattooed beforehand. That places you in the top five or so percent of English-speaking population and means that you live brains apart from the people whose life has a very small intersection with the realm of ink splodges forming legible patterns on a processed cellulose substrate, making your attempt at explaining quite futile.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It could be the best social commentary ever written, but the writing is still awful.
Perhaps it's like with Shakespeare - foreigners like me enjoy it more because we have modern translation. I liked the book. But then again, I have an unhealthy interest in [pre]history.
Re: (Score:2)
It does not matter what messages it contains, the writing is awful. It could be the best social commentary ever written, but the writing is still awful. I am not sure why the writing styles of so many writers that English Lit majors adore are so terrible to read. I think it is some sort of hipsterish bullshit.
This is the most hilarious thing I've ever seen you write. The key point you are missing is that people actually talked that way back then. English actually evolves. I know, history is confusing.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it does, but newsflash people are still writing new works and translating the old. I don't read Dante in the original either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's a good job I'm not then.
Then what?
Why not elaborate? Either that or it's just a back and forth of "it's crap", "no it isn't", "yes it is", etc.
Here's something concrete:
One of the things I like to see in books is something like social commentary or insignt into the human condition. A lot of no space-opera sci-fi is either overtly about that kind of thing or has strong undertones of it. I like that and it so happens I like it in other genres too.
So go on, what is it that you dislike? Can you point
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No aliens. No spies.
Dude, it's a minor work.
Re: (Score:2)
"There's a lot more there. If you look under the surface even slightly you will see a rather bleaker and very insightful social commentary. There's more to it than that as well. There's interesting observations and reflections on family interaction too. At the most basic level, it seems that parents will never cease to be an embarrassment to teenage children and vice versa."
So it is a novel then?
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly think that what people like you have done to Jane Austen's work is worse than book burning
What have I done? My sole interaction with it has been (a) reading it, (b) talking about it (among many, many other books) occasionally with a fellow nerd and now (c) writing a post on slashdot.
I don't know what you think I've done to it, but I can assure you I haven't. Well, probably not.
Re: (Score:2)
His point, regardless if it's valid or not in this instance, is how much we the reader see in books that isn't actually there. Due to our own personal beliefs, we see things relevant to those beliefs in the books we read, when more often than not the author never actually intended for such a secondary meaning in the first place. It can become so pervasive that the original intent of the author is completely lost as these secondary meanings become accepted as the truth.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Totally! Just because it is social commentary and not a romance doesn't mean it isn't awful, you should totally trust the anonymous coward and the many well-read, intelligent people he is making up!!
And yes, he did not provide any counter-arguments other than his inexpert opinion (which is so much better than your English literature major opinion on English literature), but still this is something that he just knows because of his faith and if you believe in something with enough faith we all know it autom
Re: (Score:2)
But did you ever stop to think where you'd be without Vandelay Industries?
Re: (Score:2)
Now THAT'S an image you have to respect.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I think they should have gone for a picture of Thatcher fighting a grizzly bear with chainsaw arms. Now THAT'S an image you have to respect.
Maybe in 2077. When they think that was a normal day for British Parliament.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right you are. If they absolutely had to put an authoress on the banknote, why not pick Mary Shelley, who at least had the sense to write about more than just the prattling of womenfolk. Jane Austen couldn't even write a proper gothic romance-- Northanger Abbey is too self-concious a work, never reaching the magisterial heights of Mysteries of Udolpho. It's almost as if she was trying to parody something.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll ignore the most stupid parts of your post, since there's really nothing I can say except let your own words speak for themselves.
Jane Austen couldn't even write a proper gothic romance-- Northanger Abbey is too self-concious a work,
It's almost as if she was trying to parody something.
Well done! You understood the book! No woosh for you!
Re: (Score:2)
Jane Austen is irrelevant, I always thought that the Queen was a woman so there is already a woman on a 10 UKP note.
Re:In fairness (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In fairness (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If we are to enter a truly non-sexist non-whatever then sex etc, should not be a relevant criteria so to choose JA is sexist and I am opposed, but as elsewhere I still have to say that there is already a picture of a woman on the other side...
Re: (Score:2)
The Queen is a woman and she is already on the thing...
Re: (Score:3)
The Queen is a given on the currency, the people chosen to appear on the other side are supposed to be there in recognition of their contribution. From a previous post [slashdot.org] of mine:
Re: (Score:2)
The key question is how do we get these particular trolls to make their threats against somebody like the queen, whose staff's staff has staff to handle crushing them like grapes and tasting the sweet sweet wine of their eternal tears so no one in the public eye has to go to the trouble?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why there should be people on the banknotes anyhow.
Hero worship doesn't make for good progress.
If there's a need to do some national chest thumping, do it with actual achievements, not long dead achievers that won't come back.
Or place ads on the money. That might give the notes more historic value. They're doomed anyhow, with all payments going electronic before long, but at least it would be of historical value, unlike a picture of the Nora Roberts of yore. And it would bring in money.
Re: (Score:2)
Death theats have never been considered protected speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Love my career. Started my own business 20 years ago, at 14, and it's wonderful. But it's a far cry from cooking for a family. Just look at women's average age of death these days. Relatively speaking, it's gone down. It turns out that working for a living adds biological stress that they just didn't have before.
Caged bird, sure. But having twice as many humans in the workforce actually hurts the workforce too.
Re: (Score:2)
and sexual harassment in the workplace, greater unemployment, shorter female lifespans (relatively), more feminine men.
as a cognitive exercize, what would you say if having twice as many humans in the workforce were simply too much for the economy to bare? What if we simply can't produce that many jobs per capita? Simply put, not everyone can have a job if society is to thrive. What then?
Re: (Score:3)
From that article: "Twitter is just another arena. The normal rules don’t apply. You can say things you would NEVER say in real life. That’s social media. And if you don’t like the rules, well, get off Twitter."
I'd beg to differ. I've been using Twitter for 5 years now and I'll admit that I say many things on Twitter that I wouldn't say face-to-face, but that's primarily because I feel more comfortable socializing via computer. That being said, I have a very simple rule for what I s
Re: (Score:3)
Well said.
What people fail to realize is that the rules to Twitter should actually be MORE strict, not less.
You're not just speaking in a crowded room with your parents and children watching, the whole freaking world including your future partners and employers are watching and will be able to look up EVERYTHING you ever said.
Re: (Score:3)
... this is about silencing dissent, nothing else... You can guarantee that all the rape 'threats' were made up by JEW rabble rousers, so that we can 'think of the children' and report anything that anybody says, if the JEWS don't like it...
You know, little problems like the homicidal gas chambers being a myth... little lies like that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Kl6RHKIQk
Watch the video and THEN tell me I'm wrong.
You're wrong.