Emma Watson (nonexistent) nudes: So 4chan got False Flagged by Rantic Marketing.

[LJ_Reloaded]

Well what can 4chan say? After all they started it with their #EndFathersDay and #Freebleeding pranks against feminists.

If you're gonna throw a punch expect to get hit back. Although Rantic Marketing stooped pretty far down to pull a trick like this. One has to wonder if this will reflect poorly on Emma Watson.

 

[badbabysitter]

threatening to post naked pictures of Emma Watson....


...is going to somehow reflect poorly on the person that was threatened?

 

[1sickbastard]

threatening to post naked pictures of Emma Watson....


...is going to somehow reflect poorly on the person that was threatened?

I can't imagine that Emma Watson being nude would reflect poorly on her at all.
Not too keen on any such pix taken or distributed without her permission though.

 

[badbabysitter]

I can't imagine that Emma Watson being nude would reflect poorly on her at all.
Not too keen on any such pix taken or distributed without her permission though.

that's what I dont get...people seem to be outraged.. that she doesnt want her privacy invaded

where does the bitch get off wanting to protect images or likeness of her

 

[1sickbastard]

that's what I dont get...people seem to be outraged.. that she doesnt want her privacy invaded

where does the bitch get off wanting to protect images or likeness of her

Apparently being any sort of a media figure is a de facto surrender of any & all rights to personal privacy.

I give the young woman props for pursuing her degree program & doing her level best to stay out of the tabloids, though I do hope she continues to act. Loved her performance in "The Perks of Being a Wallflower".

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

threatening to post naked pictures of Emma Watson....


...is going to somehow reflect poorly on the person that was threatened?

Are you General Board people really that fucking dense? I know you people are a bit slow but this forum has really gone downhill if this confuses you.

If Emma Watson was actually in on Rantic Marketing's fabricated threats against herself, that would reflect poorly on her.

I know this is hard for you to follow but the problem wouldn't be with her protecting herself, it would be with her (or Rantic Marketing) trying to portray herself as a victim for nationwide sympathy points by framing someone else.

Again I know this is far above your grade level to comprehend but I tried. Should I try scrawling this in crayola markers next time? With pictures, and shit?

 

[1sickbastard]

Are you General Board people really that fucking dense? I know you people are a bit slow but this forum has really gone downhill if this confuses you.

If Emma Watson was actually in on Rantic Marketing's fabricated threats against herself, that would reflect poorly on her.

I know this is hard for you to follow but the problem wouldn't be with her protecting herself, it would be with her (or Rantic Marketing) trying to portray herself as a victim for nationwide sympathy points by framing someone else.

Again I know this is far above your grade level to comprehend but I tried. Should I try scrawling this in crayola markers next time? With pictures, and shit?

No, lj, your post was really that poorly written. I'm sure it made all sorts of sense to you, but that doesn't mean squat if you cannot communicate your ideas clearly and effectively. If other's don't understand you, that's your fault for having poor communication skills, not everyone else's fault.

If you want to be understood, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to make yourself understood.

The only thing you ever manage to communicate clearly is that you're angry, and that anger is more often than not, directed as some woman or group of women.
And that's all you ever seem to manage to communicate clearly.

 

[badbabysitter]

Are you General Board people really that fucking dense? I know you people are a bit slow but this forum has really gone downhill if this confuses you.

If Emma Watson was actually in on Rantic Marketing's fabricated threats against herself, that would reflect poorly on her.

I know this is hard for you to follow but the problem wouldn't be with her protecting herself, it would be with her (or Rantic Marketing) trying to portray herself as a victim for nationwide sympathy points by framing someone else.

Again I know this is far above your grade level to comprehend but I tried. Should I try scrawling this in crayola markers next time? With pictures, and shit?

so your theory is..

that Emma Watson..entered into a secret collaboration..

with an obscure web site..

to threaten...

herself..

to fake the release..

of her own naked pictures?

yes.. you are right.. that is hard for me to follow... because it's tinfoil hat material


I know you believe that there is a global feminist conspiracy to crush men... but this is Mike Yates material

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

so your theory is..

that Emma Watson..entered into a secret collaboration..

with an obscure web site..

to threaten...

herself..

to fake the release..

of her own naked pictures?

yes.. you are right.. that is hard for me to follow... because it's tinfoil hat material


I know you believe that there is a global feminist conspiracy to crush men... but this is Mike Yates material

I said it's possible, not that she actually did conspire with them.

I have heard that they were her PR people at one time or another, but can't verify that.

 

[badbabysitter]

I said it's possible, not that she actually did conspire with them.

I have heard that they were her PR people at one time or another, but can't verify that.

ahhhhh... so it's " possible"

it's possible you're a winged platypus sent from the future to kill Sarah Connor as well

and you " heard" that Rantic Marketing were her PR people at some point in her life.. despite there being no record of this ever happening

okay, gotcha

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

ahhhhh... so it's " possible"

it's possible you're a winged platypus sent from the future to kill Sarah Connor as well

So the fact that this conveniently happened RIGHT after Emma Watson did her HeForShe bullshit plug, means nothing at all to you? The mere SUSPICION that this was intended to gain sympathy points for feminism, is somehow on the non-credibility level of "a winged platypus coming to kill Sarah Connor"?

BBS you'd lose a debate with a rock.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

No, lj, your post was really that poorly written.

No, it wasn't. You guys are notorious for either twisting shit, or not comprehending basic stuff.

There was nothing ambiguous about what I said. The possibility that this could reflect poorly on Emma Watson is not hard to grasp - an ugly prank like this, done in her name, reflects horribly on Rantic Marketing, and could well drag her down, too. That is quite obvious from my OP.

Emma Watson needs to disavow Rantic Marketing.

 

[badbabysitter]

So the fact that this conveniently happened RIGHT after Emma Watson did her HeForShe bullshit plug, means nothing at all to you? The mere SUSPICION that this was intended to gain sympathy points for feminism, is somehow on the non-credibility level of "a winged platypus coming to kill Sarah Connor"?

BBS you'd lose a debate with a rock.

It is conveniently happened right after her speech to the UN.. you dont seem to think humiliating a woman that spoke out on women might be a factor as well?

your theory would have a degree of plausibility if there was any actual connection between Watson and Rantic

which there is not


you presented a theory that has absolutely no basis in anything remotely resembling fact

that is why the winged playtpus and your tinfoil feminist conspiracy are equally valid... because there is literally nothing to support either.. except someone's feeling


are feelings and opinions now debatable points?

 

[badbabysitter]

No, it wasn't. You guys are notorious for either twisting shit, or not comprehending basic stuff.

There was nothing ambiguous about what I said. The possibility that this could reflect poorly on Emma Watson is not hard to grasp - an ugly prank like this, done in her name, reflects horribly on Rantic Marketing, and could well drag her down, too. That is quite obvious from my OP.

Emma Watson needs to disavow Rantic Marketing.

your first post in no way connects Watson to Rantic

further posts also do not show any connection between Watson and Rantic

why does she need to disavow an organization she has no connection to

Watson should disavow Rantic just as you should disavow the Russian Hussars

 

[1sickbastard]

Well what can 4chan say? After all they started it with their #EndFathersDay and #Freebleeding pranks against feminists.

If you're gonna throw a punch expect to get hit back. Although Rantic Marketing stooped pretty far down to pull a trick like this. One has to wonder if this will reflect poorly on Emma Watson.

This was your op.
Contrast that to this:

No, it wasn't. You guys are notorious for either twisting shit, or not comprehending basic stuff.

There was nothing ambiguous about what I said. The possibility that this could reflect poorly on Emma Watson is not hard to grasp - an ugly prank like this, done in her name, reflects horribly on Rantic Marketing, and could well drag her down, too. That is quite obvious from my OP.

Emma Watson needs to disavow Rantic Marketing.

Quite the difference, isn't it?

If your first post had nothing ambiguous, it clearly had nothing like demonstrable point either. That you assumed your intended audience were familiar with the situation or had any knowledge of it, whatsoever, is ON YOU.
We're not fucking mindreaders & you provided no links, no references, no information, nothing. And then you decide to whine we're too dense to understand you?

Are you one of those people who travel to foreign countries then and get bent out of shape no one speaks English either?

Again, the burden of clearly communicating an idea is the onus of the individual desiring to communicate an idea.

And to the point of this useless thread;
Emma Watson doesn't seem to lack anything as far as her mental capabilities or her demonstrated ability to control her own social media or public image.
She's a bright, clever individual. She's also pretty well connected in the halls of power. I have no worries for her or her future ability to manage or maintain her public persona, her private life or her future career prospects.

Nice of you to be a concerned fanboi though.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

your first post in no way connects Watson to Rantic

This was your op.
Contrast that to this:

You and 1sickbastard are either both insane or dumb as a rock.

Which is it?

 

[marshalt]

So what you're saying is there are no nudes of the Harry Potter chick?

 

[1sickbastard]

You and 1sickbastard are either both insane or dumb as a rock.

Which is it?

Ah yes, the false dichotomy in the form of an ad hominem attack.

Well, it bloody well took you long enough.

I'm going to go with all of the above, because then you'll have to deal with being pwned by someone who is both dumb as a rock & insane.

 

[badbabysitter]

Yes, we're dumb and insane

because you believe in a completely fictional conspiracy

thanks for clearing that up

 

[badbabysitter]

I've bolded the parts you....won't like

In the wake of giving a very mild speech about feminism and men’s role in it at the United Nations, Harry Potter actress Emma Watson found herself threatened by the 4chan messageboard with a release of nude photos supposedly hacked from her computer. But the countdown clock website at the center of this mess, entitled “Emma You Are Next,” had a surprise for everyone when it hit zero: the whole thing was, apparently, a hoax by a marketing firm called Rantic. Confusion proliferated: was the entire thing made up? Were the comments on 4chan fake? How deep did the rabbit hole go? Who or what was Rantic? Indeed, the website itself seemed to furnish an answer.

As of this writing, it now displays a strongly worded letter to the President Barack Obama, enjoining him and the world at large to “#shutdown4chan,” claiming the “Emma You Are Next” clock was a hoax meant to draw attention to 4chan’s criminal leaks of celebrity nude photos. It’s endorsed by Rantic CEO Brad Cockingham. Yes, really. The letter even says the hacking is a “clear indication that the internet NEEDS to be censored.” Curiouser and curiouser.

In truth, it’s a matryoshka hoax, you might say. Rantic itself isn’t real, and this fake campaign to shut down 4chan is but another attention-grabbing stunt wrapped in the previous one. According to Business Insider:

“Rantic Marketing is a fake company run by a gang of prolific internet spammers used to quickly capitalize on internet trends for page views. The group goes by a variety of different names. Collectively, they’re known as SocialVEVO, but as the Daily Dot reports, their names are alleged to include Jacob Povolotski, Yasha Swag, Swenzy, and Joey B. The only known video footage of the group is a rap song about pickles that they used dubious spam techniques to make incredibly popular.”

And so it goes.

In the wise words of Sean O’Neal at the AV Club, “Everyone on the Internet needs a time out.” But I tend to be the stubborn sort who tries her damndest to pull silver linings from the messiest, trolliest of cyber-vomit clouds, so let’s give it a shot.

***

One thing that can be taken away from all this is that threats are “real” to their targets even if they turn out to be hoaxes. After all, we can understand that a threat to kill someone can have a terrible psychic impact on the target even if the person making the threats has no intention of making good on them. It is precisely the Schrodingerian quality of not knowing that makes these things so torturous.

Threats of this particular kind—attacking Emma Watson because she gave a feminist speech—also have a terroristic effect on any woman in a similar position. Being threatened for speaking out as a feminist is neither new, nor rare, and events that target a celebrity in this way have the effect of scaring thousands or millions more. They serve as constant reminders to women, in particular, that speaking one’s mind in public is to incur the wrath of mob justice.

The internet makes crowdsourcing such attacks easier than ever; the buy-in for mobbing is lower than it’s been at any point in history, and the threat made against Watson was entirely believable because of how 4chan has been at the center of mass sexist campaigns like GamerGate and the leaking of other celebrity nude phots. The hoax would not have gained traction without the faith and credit ensured by past events.

Being a public figure of any sort, regardless of one’s gender, carries a terrible price these days since we are all made to stand before the flaming open vents of social media as a condition of our work. Men and women alike have noticed that the internet is often a furnace of furious and often hateful personal invective lobbed up at anyone with a platform. But for women and feminists the threshhold for being attacked is much lower; it takes less exposure, less reach, less celebrity to be deemed worthy of hate-mobbing. Sometimes the biggest targets are women few people had ever heard of prior to the harassment campaigns against them. I’ve watched friends who are only well known in very narrow activist circles get struck by waves of directionless harassment that come from nowhere and everywhere at once.

One poster on 4chan’s /pol/ board wrote, according to Jezebel,

“4chan holds Emma in high esteem, and while most of us would fap like crazy to real nudes, it’s not us hacking the cloud.

Thanks for listening. Oh, if by some rare fluke Emma Watson is reading this – many on 4chan respect what you’re doing as a moderate, balanced feminist and we don’t hate you like we hate the SJW’s”

No one person can truly speak for a hivemind, naturally, but it is not hard to find similar sentiments sprinkled across the internet: online denizens setting themselves up as arbiters of who is the right kind of respectable woman and/or feminist, and who is not. The implication, of course, is that for those who do not pass the test all the layers of Hell await. But as I said, no one person can speak for a hivemind, and in a society that holds women to such impossible standards, some group, somewhere will find us wanting, even if others praise us for our supposed moderation.

I myself was praised by some disingenuous people as the “right kind” of feminist because of my stance on what’s been dubbed “toxic activism.” I did indeed break with orthodoxy to challenge shibboleths like the absolute application of “the tone argument” or concepts like “intent isn’t magic,” and some outsiders and even anti-feminists seemed pleased with me for this, though I was certainly not seeking their approval. Perhaps most infamously to some, I even won the approbation of feminist writer Michelle Goldberg, who proceeded to use my words and those of other women of colour to frame an article scapegoating black women on Twitter for the toxicity we had described.

A few months later, however, and I now find myself on the other side of the line again, deemed a “social justice warrior” by angry young men in the gaming community who are currently trying to bully outspoken feminist and queer writers out of the world of video game criticism and journalism. Suddenly I am once again the evil radical who needs to be punished by the merciless will of the mob.

The “high esteem” the anonymous 4channer alludes to is a fleeting thing indeed.

I’ve often called this kind of cyber mobbing “the monster with a thousand faces,” for it does act as a thoughtless mass of Lovecraftian proportions and horrors whose will and reasoning seem nearly inscrutable to the rest of us. It is a constant companion to women online—and our allies as well; men will find themselves beset by similar horrors if they speak up in defence of women, especially those deemed by that 4chan mentality to not be worthy of “high esteem.” Disapproval does not earn you disagreement; instead, it yearns for your very destruction.

It is what made the “Emma You Are Next” countdown so believable. Meanwhile, petty abuse from that thousand-faced monster carries on against many people you have never heard of, with no headlines to mark its occurrence. This specific countdown was a hoax; the culture that created it is all too real.

 

[badbabysitter]

remind me again how Emma Watson uses Rantic as her public relations

that would be awesome

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Ah yes, the false dichotomy in the form of an ad hominem attack.

It's called calling it as it is. As for your whining about ad hominems? Really On this forum? You can't pwn a pot to piss in, much less me.

Oh and your reading skills still suck ass.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

remind me again how Emma Watson uses Rantic as her public relations

that would be awesome

This is coming from the same feminist who thought Elliot Rodgers was a MRA.

 

[badbabysitter]

This is coming from the same feminist who thought Elliot Rodgers was a MRA.

still doesnt change your conspiracy theory about Emma Watson

 

[1sickbastard]

It's called calling it as it is. As for your whining about ad hominems? Really On this forum? You can't pwn a pot to piss in, much less me.

Oh and your reading skills still suck ass.

Oh, lj, you are so adorable when you get all flustered & defensive, I could just put you in my pocket.
What you labeled "whining" about ad hominem was, in fact, an observation.
Specifically it's an observation that, on the interwebs in general & the GB in particular, the ad hominem is often one of the last resorts of those who had nothing to back whatever point they were purportedly trying to make.
In other words, totally a sign of someone who realizes he or she has just been pwned. Which you have been. Hell, you practically pwn yourself. All's it really takes is anyone to point it out.

I see badbabysitter did some actual research on the topic at hand.
That sound you hear? It's laughter. Directed at you.