The joke is not actually offensive for all the reasons mentioned here, but it seems tonally incongruous for the Simpsons, which I guess is the issue with the whole crossover. Family Guy is occasionally funny, but the tone of the humor is completely different. Family Guy is irreverent and offensive. The Simpsons is…
I really think that they're doing what they claim is being done to them. It's a group from 4chan, pretending to be a group against 4chan. What a tweest!
I don't even necessarily think second grade is too early for it, but "SURPRISE YOU SHOULD TALK ABOUT VAGINAS NOW" really isn't the best way to handle that at all. That's some shit you need to think about how to approach beforehand, as a teacher.
Not to mention strategically just dumb, since the people who went to the page would theoretically be looking for nudes, and therefore opposed to the concept of censoring the internet and shutting down 4chan.
Curiosity, why would someone use real fur (which is probably more expensive) instead of the mass produced fake stuff?
UGH. Right? They basically just gave a million dumbfuck misogynists a platform on which to proclaim their hatred for women - again - so that we all can read it. It doesn't really matter what the intention was, from a feminist angle. Women (particularly Emma Watson, in this case) are still the fucking victim.
THIS. Where is the "Weeping With Gratitude" stock photo?
These women are probably upset because their employers just told them about their "deeply held" religious beliefs concerning contraception, and this is their last month of pills. I'd be confused, suspicious, and downright sad-faced too.
So we have to barter for basic human rights?
So, women should start treating your entire existence as a bargaining chip? You owe women your life, the least you can do is pay us the same amount of money for doing the same job.
Equality is offering something? What? Did they change the definition of equality from "treating all people without prejudice" to... whatever bribery shit you're talking about?
I've been noticing a major shift in how all (or most) issues affecting women are covered in the mainstream media over the course of the past two to three years—the media response to the Santa Barbara shooting in May is another very recent example, as well as the recent spotlight on college campus rape cases.
I'm curious as to exactly when and why the shift occurred. I mean you could just say media outlets are more aware of the issues involved, moral and criminal, but how did this awareness come about in the past year or so? I say year because wasn't Gawker boasting about a sex tape they refused to take down then?
yes! i'm probably reading more biased coverage because i like to read stuff that's more progressive, but i'm noticing a lot more, "you guys are dicks for doing this, hey everyone don't look at those pictures!" than i've seen in the past.
You're not necessarily "wrong" in the sense that anyone who stores any photo on the cloud is indeed at risk of possibly being hacked. We're all always at risk, all the time, whether it's uploading photos to the cloud or using a credit card or having any kind of online presence that includes personal information. Such…
But you never mentioned that they were in the wrong you went straight to victim blaming.
Why do people do this coy "Not gonna say it but I'm saying it anyway! Tee hee!" BS? If you don't want to engage, don't. Since you clearly do, why bother pretending? It's spineless and never 1/100th as clever as the speaker seems to think it will be. And it does a disservice to both the issue and your audience.
I probably shouldn't even humor you with a response, but you do know that "the cloud" is the default on most platforms now, right? And you can't expect every person to be aware enough of the security implications to disable it. You might as well blame Apple and Google.
