×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

55,000 Sign Twitter Abuse Petition After Jane Austen Campaigner Threats

samzenpus posted about 9 months ago | from the play-nice dept.

Twitter 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

421 comments

In fairness (-1, Offtopic)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 9 months ago | (#44413307)

...Jane Austen is just awful.

Then again I don't much care for Jerry Seinfeld either, and he's pretty much the 20th Century equivalent.

Re:In fairness (5, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#44413319)

In even more fairness, 90% of everything is crap.

misandry! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44414055)

Holy crap AlistairCharlton , how about a freakin' triggers warning?!!
Is it misogyny to tip the stripper with these Jane Austin bills?

Re:In fairness (0)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 9 months ago | (#44413373)

If they really needed a woman to replace Charles Darwin on the notes then surely someone like Marie Curie would have been a better bet? Why not replace a scientist with another scientist?

Re:In fairness (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413473)

Marie Curie wasn't British....

Re:In fairness (5, Interesting)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 9 months ago | (#44413481)

Marie Curie wasn't English, so there's that. I would have chosen Ada Lovelace instead, who I feel is a sadly underappreciated figure.

Re:In fairness (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413961)

Not! The only woman of importance in the history of world civilization is Marie Curie, at least according to the uber edumicated elite liberal media. No woman except for Marie Curie and the girl who discovered DNA has ever done anything of importance. This is why she is the only girl mentioned when the uber edumicated elite liberal media is discussing womans rights and how woman can do just as much stuff as a man can. The media has allowed me to realize that a woman is just as much a person as a man. Thanks liberal media for keeping me informed and keeping your finger on the pulse of the world. Woman have made no other contributions to anything ever (At least none that the uber edumicated elite liberal media would know about of have an interest in).

Re:In fairness (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413525)

I suspect M. Curie did not get chosen because the British would prefer to have the visage of actual British-born person on their currency rather than some Polish immigrant who became a French citizen.

Re:In fairness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413657)

Clearly you haven't listened to this podcast!

http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/07/04/jane-austen-game-theorist-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

Re:In fairness (5, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 9 months ago | (#44413403)

...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:In fairness (-1, Flamebait)

ocamsrazor (228566) | about 9 months ago | (#44413573)

I honestly think that what people like you have done to Jane Austen's work is worse than book burning.

Her work no longer exists as just her work.

Re:In fairness (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 9 months ago | (#44413833)

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:In fairness (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413623)

Just because it's "social commentary" and not a romance, that doesn't mean it isn't awful. Trust me, many well-read, intelligent people think Austin is pretty horrible. It is, and yes, it is pretty much old-school Seinfeld.

Get off your "I studied English Lit" high-horse, please.

Re:In fairness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413793)

Even better if they get off the English literature high horse heard first into the ground.

Re:In fairness (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 9 months ago | (#44413637)

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:In fairness (1, Interesting)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 9 months ago | (#44413799)

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 and to be honest what we did in my school barely qualifies as "studying". But that's a very long rant for another day :)

Vogon poetry.

That would be: The life and opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman.

I tried to read it. I struggled to somewhere past the black page and then gave up. It's kind of entertaining in that it this sort of bonkers post modern (about 200 years early) take on the modern novel (written about 50 years after the modern novel format was first invented) and is basically wall to wall memes and pop culture circa 1750.

Basically the result is Vogon Poetry.

Re:In fairness (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 9 months ago | (#44413859)

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:In fairness (4, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 9 months ago | (#44413965)

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:In fairness (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 9 months ago | (#44413921)

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.

Well, it's a good job I'm not then.

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.

novels I think if you're under the impression that Jerry Seinfeld writes romantic fiction, and not social commentary, then perhaps, frankly you have no idea what you're talking about. I mean seriously, watch one episode of his tedious - almost as tedious as P&P show.

Re:In fairness (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 9 months ago | (#44413989)

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 to anything other than very vague impressions?

Re:In fairness (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413477)

"In fairness?" So it's okay to threaten to rape of kill someone if they don't share your opinion? Wow...

I know you were probably being facetious, but really: You're not helping here.

Re:In fairness (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about 9 months ago | (#44413587)

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.

Re:In fairness (1)

FilmedInNoir (1392323) | about 9 months ago | (#44413899)

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.

Zimmerman? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413361)

As long as it apples to everyone.
http://twitchy.com/2013/07/13/twitter-lynch-mob-threatens-to-kill-george-zimmerman/

Re:Zimmerman? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413443)

*applies*, sorry.

Re:Zimmerman? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413535)

It doesn't apply to men, sorry!

Re:Zimmerman? (-1, Flamebait)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 9 months ago | (#44413537)

Why isn't parent modded up? I hate that asshole Zimmerman as much as the next person, but the quality that makes us civilized is that we apply our high-falutin' standards regardless of the subject.

Come on people, you can describe Zimmerman in the most vile terms to express your opinion of him - what does it add to your position (and credibility) if you also threaten to kill him?

Re:Zimmerman? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413789)

what does it add to your position (and credibility) if you also threaten to kill him?

Hipster/Gangsta cred

Re:Zimmerman? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413847)

Because, men who argue for things to be applied equally and fairly are misogynists.

Re:Zimmerman? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413855)

I hate that asshole Zimmerman as much as the next person,

Have you ever even met him? The man was accused of something and found not guilty, but his guilt was implied by the nation news media... so you hate that asshole? Perhaps it is time to grow a spine, and maybe even a brain to attach to the end of it.

Re:Zimmerman? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44414049)

The national media didnt "imply" his guilt by doing anything other than report the sequence of events. His guilt is pretty fucking obvious, Florida law notwithstanding.

The jury fell for the standard bullshit told to jurors before any trial - you have to vote based on this that and the other thing. You dont ~have~ to vote in any way. There are however many ways to vote wherein you cannot say ~why~ you voted that way. As a juror, you vote how you want and then shut your fucking mouth so as not to invalidate the trial.

Re:Zimmerman? (1)

Sique (173459) | about 9 months ago | (#44413617)

Caroline Criado-Perez didn't kill anyone.

Re:Zimmerman? (1)

Xenx (2211586) | about 9 months ago | (#44413685)

That shouldn't make it any better. I realize that due to human nature, it does. But, it shouldn't.

Re:Zimmerman? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413773)

Not that we know of, yet.

Re:Zimmerman? (1, Insightful)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 9 months ago | (#44413735)

Threatening anyone is wrong. You linked a troll site created by the hate-fueled M. Malkin, that organizes nitwits to go derp on Twitter. Try to do better.

Re:Zimmerman? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44414057)

Hate-fueled? Yeah right. Calling people nitwits and go derp isn't hate because your making fun of people you deem unfit. Herp De Derp loser. Your as bad as this little woman pretending to fight for some cause all the while using it to further control against us. Wanker de jour.

Really? (3, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 9 months ago | (#44413369)

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:Really? (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 9 months ago | (#44413515)

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:Really? (2)

cusco (717999) | about 9 months ago | (#44413601)

That's from George Carlin. I occasionally get notes from pedants pointing out that 'mean' would be more appropriate than 'average', but if you think about delivering the line to 1,500 people (a goodly percentage of them drunk and/or stoned) 'average' is probably easiest for the majority to understand.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413825)

Stuff like intelligence is mostly on a bell curve so when applied to the general population the mean and the average will be the same for all intents and purposes.

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413925)

You misspelled "intensive porpoises".
You also used it incorrectly in this context.

Re:Really? (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about 9 months ago | (#44413539)

I can only assume that their outrage was not based upon it being a woman, but it being Jane Austen.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413721)

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.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413811)

I can only assume that their outrage was not based upon it being a woman, but it being Jane Austen.

Hm, yeah, that sadly IS more feasible, given this is the internet. The mere existence of an author someone doesn't like all that much is generally considered a justified cause for a shitstorm of vile hatred and death threats against anyone who happens to like said author. Same goes with anyone saying anything less-than-perfect about someone's favoritest author in the whole wide world ever, of course.

Re:Really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44414027)

I don't understand why Twitter needs to increase censorship to prevent someone's feeling from getting hurt. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez

Oops, I guess that should be:

If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Either way you look at it, hyphens just can't handle the heat.

What's the big deal (5, Insightful)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about 9 months ago | (#44413381)

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:What's the big deal (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 9 months ago | (#44413571)

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 there was some concern that if a man was picked there would be none left.

Re:What's the big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413877)

Of course the hilarious irony is that they've given credit to the "feminazi agenda" by showing how women still get singled out for being women, despite it being 2013.

Re:What's the big deal (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 9 months ago | (#44413909)

I don't know that I agree. Initially, it may seem like that, but I think it is more about tradition. Sure, there will always be some people upset any time consideration is given to someone who is black or female or gay or something, but I think the majority of people upset about things like this are angry over a thing simply being changed *period*.

At any rate, the "women, amiright?!" aspect of this isn't relevant.

Re:What's the big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413975)

and turn everything into an act of sexual harassment

Or an act of (certain, specific manifestations of) racism.
Or an act of anti-muslim hatred.
Or an act of climate change denial.

All must conform.

Re:What's the big deal (2)

deains (1726012) | about 9 months ago | (#44413585)

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:What's the big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413873)

You're right that the people sending these abusive tweets couldn't care less about who's on their money. They're trolls. They do it to get a reaction, and that lady at the Telegraph, crowing about "shining a torch on the underside of the internet", does nothing but give them the attention they crave. The more you "shame" them, the more will crawl out of the woodwork, because they think you're hilarious.

Re:What's the big deal (2)

Seumas (6865) | about 9 months ago | (#44413981)

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 anything else is. I'm a middle aged white male and I've been threatened for my lack of religion. I've been threatened for banning someone from my website. I've had people show up at my fucking DOORSTEP. So what?

Even the trolls you're talking about have little to do with gender. The majority of those trolls troll wherever there is trolling to be done. It isn't like they have some specific agenda to go out there and talk shit to or about just women (and it seems weird calling it "trolls" once you're talking about something worth dealing with criminally -- trolls are people who talk shit and give you a hard time and piss you off; not wage serious and legitimate threats against your life).

The problem is, everyone is going to get so bogged down in "sexism durpy durp!" that the censorship implications will go by the wayside. (And no, I'm not saying that you should have the right to seriously threaten someone's life with a real and plausible threat of harm -- I'm talking about the censorship implications when things are so broadly applied with little intelligence or consideration).

Re:What's the big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413669)

I'm going to guess it's the choice of person. I like Jane Austen's work well enough, but her biggest appeal/claim to fame isn't based so much on quality or message as it is playing to her gender. That's why, for instance, my mom watches Jane Austen movies dozens of times per year. Certainly, even though I think he's done brilliant work, I'd be a bit embarrassed if we switched the $10 bill to Louis C.K.

Re:What's the big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413883)

Well, yeah, Hamilton was pretty important! Switch the $20 to Louis C. K.; Jackson was an asshole.

Re:What's the big deal (2)

Alioth (221270) | about 9 months ago | (#44413679)

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.

Queen...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413699)

Example of having likeness of a queen on a note is quite ironic. The point is to have a Woman that is valued for her achievements not by family she was born to. In addition, women fought hard not to be subjugated be it by Man or government...

Re:Queen...? (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 9 months ago | (#44413895)

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 families, whether they claim to or not - cannot deny her influence on the world stage.

Re:What's the big deal (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413795)

The people are called MENS RIGHTS ACTIVISTS. Instead of trying to achieve fairness they seek to roll back the clock.

They also want to limit the legal definition of consent for sex so that they can rape women who are drunk. If you're an MRA you will be very angry I said that, but it is consistent with MRAs that they argue that consent is too complicated or they aren't rapists because they were totally drunk too. MRAs do not agree with the current legal standard for consent, and therefore want to make a large swath of RAPE legal by making consent more "loose". If you don't agree with the current standard for consent it means you're arguing that you should be able to RAPE people under our current laws.

If MRAs would just focus on issues like family court and being forced to be macho the rest of the civilized world wouldn't have a problem with them. Instead they put forth a campaign of mysogny and argue to make what is legally rape now into not rape.

Re:What's the big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413911)

I'd put money on very few of the people involved being "MEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS".

Re:What's the big deal (1)

intermodal (534361) | about 9 months ago | (#44413933)

I don't agree with abuse, but I'd certainly oppose putting Jane Austen on currency simply because I don't care for her novels. I'd rather see any number of other authors than Jane Austen.

Ignoring the censorship stuff... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413395)

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.

Re:Ignoring the censorship stuff... (-1, Troll)

Seumas (6865) | about 9 months ago | (#44414079)

I always find shit like this to be highly suspect. There have been incidents where people who have claimed to be the victims of "threats of violence and rape by evil male internet trolls on the intarwebs" turned out to actually be the ones writing those threats under fake accounts to themselves.

People also need to stop acting like the very few trolls out there who *will say anything to anyone in any situation online where they believe it will upset someone or get them some attention* are somehow representative of actual people's actual thoughts. I'm sure there are a few shitty people out there, but how is it we just stop acknowledging that most of those people saying this shit are just social-rejects who use saying vile shit on the internet to get a response? These same idiots "threatening" the woman this article is about are also likely the same idiots who spend their time hurling slurs around on XBOX Live all evening or posting "atheists should be killed so they can go to the afterlife and see what hell is like and find out how wrong they were" on religion-related articles that Drudge links to from his site.

Taking these people at face value is a lot like taking a toddler at face value and we would do well not to mistake their ridiculous spewings on the internet as actual opinions and thoughts held by actual people (even the hideous ones) in actual life.

I guess Queen Elizabeth II doesn't count? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413405)

Am I missing something key here? Why is it even a hot issue (campaigning to get a woman's image on a bank note) when the Queen is a woman...

Re:I guess Queen Elizabeth II doesn't count? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413505)

Especially considering that at the rate the english government bends down to his american counterpart, the "US dollar" will soon be the official currency of UK.

Re:I guess Queen Elizabeth II doesn't count? (2)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 9 months ago | (#44413619)

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:

...we have the likes of humanitarians [wikipedia.org], naturalists [wikipedia.org], composers (albeit overrated IMO) [wikipedia.org], philosophers [wikipedia.org] and engineers. [wikipedia.org]

Re:I guess Queen Elizabeth II doesn't count? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413985)

While restricting our American banknotes to dead politicians is sort of boring, the fact that the people chosen haven't changed for the past hundred years has prevented some avoidable arguments like the one in TFA.

Though it took a fight to keep the Reagan-worshippers from kicking Grant off the $50 and putting the Gipper on there instead. Every Stephenson fan knows we need to save him for the trillion-dollar bill, after all.

Re: I guess Queen Elizabeth II doesn't count? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413629)

It's the grievance industry. They won't be satisfied until every p3n15 is surgically removed for the sake of equality.

Re: I guess Queen Elizabeth II doesn't count? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413717)

Good thing your .5" erect penis is worthless already. Cutting it off is losing nothing of value.

Why Jane Austen??? (0)

pla (258480) | about 9 months ago | (#44413485)

I can think of at least a dozen really good female authors (and could probably come up with another hundred halfway decent ones) they could have selected instead of the Queen of Vapidity.

I mean, okay, technically she founded the modern "art" of the Soap Opera - Although she didn't quite advance it to the "interesting plot twist" level, preferring to keep it at the "nothing really happens but someone gets married in the end" level of complexity. But should we really celebrate someone for poisoning 200 years of young girls' minds into thinking their prince would come despite their complete absence of any redeeming qualities whatsoever (except frail "beauty", gotta love that oh-so-attactive dying-of-TB look).

That said, hurling abuse and threats at someone just because they actually did something about what they wanted, while the rest of us sat around and did nothing - Not even remotely cool.

And really, just about anyone must have more merit than the royal family, so... Good show, Caroline! :D

Re:Why Jane Austen??? (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 9 months ago | (#44413739)

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.

Seriously? (2)

YukariHirai (2674609) | about 9 months ago | (#44413509)

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:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413583)

Those Charles Darwin fanbois are frickin' insane.

Re:Seriously? (0)

ocamsrazor (228566) | about 9 months ago | (#44413609)

It's pretty obvious they're all just "taking the piss" at this point.

But apparently it's still too much for the fairer sex's delicate ears.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413893)

Not so much an issue of 'delicate ears', so much as an issue of that's a bit of an overreaction to the circumstances. A woman's face on a bank note, even if she isn't the best of candidates resulting in threats of rape and bodily injury?

Seems a bit overblown I would think. Imagine if every time a man was promoted to CEO, placed on a bank note or put in any position or respect or power he got a vast influx of hate mail purely due to his gender, not jealousy of position / status as is most likely the case of any hate mail they will receive. (What I'm saying is I sincerely doubt these men are threatening to rape her because they're jealous she didn't nominate them to be on the banknote, I doubt if a man would have elected another man to be placed on the bill that he would have received rape threats, or even death threats for that matter...)

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413737)

Rape and death threats over pushing for a woman's face on a banknote?

No, not "a woman's face" -- the queen makes the occasional appearance on UK bank notes. It's about Jane Austen's face. It's understandable. I would not be surprised if half (or more) of the death threats came from women. Who should represent UK women on a bank note? Do you really think she's the best of the best the UK has to offer?

Why is twitter involved? (3, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | about 9 months ago | (#44413615)

If someone makes a threat, arrest them and file charges (which has been done in this case). Only when actions have real life consequences will the trolls Learn.

We need to regulate the Internet!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413625)

For the sake of women and children everywhere!!!!

just wow (0)

holophrastic (221104) | about 9 months ago | (#44413659)

I could care less about women's lib. Quite frankly, I'd give anything to be a women in the '50s. What a great life. I'm still hoping that women take all of the current jobs, and just let me stay at home cooking and cleaning and caring for children. That's all way better than commuting, working in an office, and the general stress of clients and deadlines.

All of that aside, who's on the bank notes really doesn't have any significance to anybody at all. It doesn't affect lives. So if a bunch of people want to put a woman onto a bank notes, I couldn't care less. Quite frankly, it'd be a welcome change from the really really old guy on our some of our current notes. Although, the queen on the most recent quarter around here really is looking quite ancient.

To think that someone would care so much that they'd resort to death-threats, especially after-the-fact, is way worse than criminal: it's just plain silly. There are so many better things against which to argue.

Re:just wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413879)

I could care less about women's lib...

So if a bunch of people want to put a woman onto a bank notes, I couldn't care less.

Do make up your mind.

Problem is always the same. (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about 9 months ago | (#44413781)

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.

oh noes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413817)

somebody somewhere said something nasty addressed to me, how can I go on living like this??

More Jewish censorship coming... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413931)

... 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.

Re:More Jewish censorship coming... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44414025)

I have added you to our list.

Umm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44413983)

Isn't there an image of the queen on every note? She's alleged to be a woman, no?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...