I don't get this either. Are you saying that she went against her own ideologies in order to prove herself in a man's world? Like she went home and cried every night over not being able to help women because she knew she had to act and carry out the menz wishes the next day? Or maybe because her politics didn't…

LOL, okay dude. You tell it like it is! I bet you think Britney Spears is in charge of her own career too.

I keep seeing this stated, but I keep seeing a difference. He ranked her attractiveness, which to me says it's either more of a come-on to her (which makes it more indicative of harassment or something else) or he really has pondered how unattractive the other attorney-generals are. This is different than just…

Really? That's interesting. Was the intent for them to take "sample sizes" (term?) of the site just to make sure it wasn't sliding in overall quality or was there something else going on? That sort of goes against what was said in the other discussion about spot checks and the legalities involved.

You dropped all polite "feminine" pretense to call me a dick and point out the flaw in my argument, i.e. comment with substance? I feel like you get me. <3

Meryl Streep's rep when she was hot was that she was the greatest living actor. Agree or disagree, but that was it. And still her career slowed down A LOT when she aged. And yet, that she still has managed to find work you consider this proof? She herself has made speeches in which she says there are not enough…

What the f...wait, this is Tumblr-related, isn't it. Ooohhh...ok, well if you want to make a comparison between how Tumblr handles this stuff and why Facebook doesn't handle it that way, we can talk about that. That's actually interesting. Go!

Why didn't the leader of the group take it down? Was there no pressure for them to take it down at all?

For some reason people "shared" the childporn while posting how disgusted they were, and then complained to FB. So it hit a huge number of feeds in record time before there was a chance to take it down. They meant well but apparently Facebook users run the gamut of society when it comes down to determining HOW to do…

Anticipation? But that's a good question, and clearly it set more than one person off so much they didn't bother to comprehend what I'm trying to say.

I applaud her efforts but not her strategy. There is and should be room for that in these topics. If not, ugh. Otherwise, I mostly agree with you.

* kyriarchy

It was one of those groups set up with Like If You Want To Send A Penny To This Scarred Baby To Pay For Her Medical Bills! things. People were bitching after my comment that later disappeared that, in a similar fashion to here, anyone who refuted the claim must hate babies and be an awful person. And the snopes.com…

Hm.

Who gives a shit about Facebook? I just hate people acting dumb or deliberately misusing or misrepresenting the tools provided for an agenda. If it's an agenda I support, I think it weakens it.

That sucks but I'd have to go with jonos' reply on this.

Or be a little pro-active and not rely on internet mommies and daddies to do the dirty work so you can keep your head in the sand? The internet has been around a while now, and some areas are full-on evil, everyone knows this. People also know giving them attention fuels the fire. Don't play dumb and pretend a fb…

What? No. lrn2internet. YOU complain, FB will wipe it as soon as the minimum wage schlub in charge of weeding through complaints gets online.

I only ever reported Romney propaganda during the election. I never got notices back from FB. But I got a comment scrubbed once — a link to snopes.com. Snopes.com! They're like, lawful neutral or something.