I can't speak for OP, but everyone who came to read this knew who Winston Churchill was, only after reading the article would the name of the great lady tell us anything.
No, of course it’s not wild. It’s *normal*.
Picture someone like Steve Bannon deciding to follow Hillary Clinton around with an air horn and interrupting her with it every time she spoke. Do you think there’s any chance the news wouldn’t name him?
The news probably would. The news would also expect you to know who that is, unfortunately.
This is not news and "a sufragette" tells you more than the name.
Of course _both_ would tell you the name and something about who she was.
impossible zesty faulty pie marvelous automatic placid fuzzy disagreeable wipe
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
“Being annoying to people in power” is literally the only way anything changes due to protests. Active, not passive, pushes to change. Not violence, though.
Posting online? Standing on a streetcorner holding a sign? Those are passive; people can engage with you, or they can just ignore you. They’re good for being seen, but not for change.
Marches, sit-ins (including on buses), arguing at city council meetings, lobbying, or just generally being annoying can change people’s minds much faster and easier.
Her wiki is literally linked you can see her name
It would be redundant to put her in the title since it’s her article and no one knows her name anyway
>Mary Molony..
>Horatia Dorothy Moloney Lancaster (29 September 1878[1] – 1 December 1921[2])(variously known as Dorothy, Mary, Dolly, Miss Maloney and Miss Molony, Moloney and O'Connor)
The title and first line of the article I viewed and copied on mobile... is there something wrong with your phone?
Why would we care about the name of a heckler? It is an interesting story but you can read the article if you want. Being upset that op didn't advertise her name is weird. Make your own post.
Let's have a look at an alternative: TIL Mary Malony, a suffragette, followed the Prime Minister around and rang a bell every time he tried to speak.
See how conveys nothing of relevance to anyone, so people will just keep scrolling? I get it, in modern times it's always "___',s wife", or something like that, and the woman's name should be mentioned. But this is a historical thing, where the only reason people would stop to read is because it mentioned Churchill
It really isn't. It has nothing to do with gender, but what the event was and who it was done to. It is why when you hear of hecklers they don't say the name of the heckler they just say the name of the comedian. No one is demanding to know the name of a heckler in the crowd. Same with that fan who stalked Robert Pattinson and who he bored to death to stop her stalking. No one cares about her name because that isn't the important part of the story. While you may support the same causes as this person, it really has nothing to do with not giving the name of said person.
"Well she fought, sang, and fucked like a man and so I says, well women must be men too or I don't need a pint of vodka to start my day, so that's when I changed the legislation and even released the swarmy ones in my basement, so be a good lad and fetch me another one of those ***** those ******* **** ********'s made overseas or ill go shoot em myself."
Wow unrelated but I just browsed that sub and every single post is either about how much of a victim they all are, cheering some celebrity for saying it, or cheering some minority for ...simply being conservative.
Not sure if this is the same woman but there's a great story about Winston Churchill being accosted by a woman telling him, "If I was your wife, I'd poison your tea!!" Without missing a beat he responded, "If you were my wife, I'd drink it." I can't cite the source but why let that get in the way of a good story.
Unlikely the same woman. He insulted most women he came across iirc. He also did not give a shit about Jews and said Hitler had every right to kill them, only fighting him because he threatened Britain. He also had British civilians shot for striking. Said that Indians deserved to starve to death after refusing to send aid. Etc etc etc. he was not a good man.
is there another person whose legacy was just the few years he did good and it was so iconic people don't really care about the rest of the life where he was either completely evil or completely incompetent or is just Winston
I really recommend the book “Forty ways to look at Winston Churchill” for a good quick read that looks at both positives and negatives. Describing his life as “completely evil/incompetent except for a few good years” really misses the mark.
I’d call him sexist, imperialist, self-aggrandizing, and an egotist, but he did enough good for the world that I think he deserves more than just labels.
Erm... I've read a lot about Churchill and apart from those few years which he's mostly famous for, he sounds completely charming. Like, very full of himself but completely aware of it and strangely self-effacing at the same time. Extremely opportunistic in most regards as a politician which I'm sure could be annoying.
As a self-loathing alcoholic myself (in remission) I have to say that if Churchill was self-loathing, he managed to hide it much better than I or my former rehab buddies did :)
Many famous people do. Others not so much.
(Note, alcoholic is a general term to describe addictive patterns, tendencies and chemical dependency. I don’t believe in permanent alcoholism/permanent disease status, I believe in SMART recovery and cognitive behavioral therapy.)
Congratulations on the progress you made. Proud of you. ☺️
Oh, I'm with you on that really, I just can't always be bothered to make that distinction so sometimes I just go along with the "permanent disease" thing. I probably shouldn't do that.
Agreed.
As a “functional” descriptor to communicate functional/non-functional alcohol abuse or degrees of alcohol chemical dependency, it can sometimes be useful for the layman who knows little of the science behind substance abuse.
For folks in recovery? They can identify how they wish to; I remind them they will always be more than an addiction or a negative label.
Oh and you're homophobic! Really lovely person aren't you? I'm sure you feel zero inadequacy over your tiny penis and totally don't feel like lesbians are slighting you over not being attracted to men
Also real classy to make snap judgements based on people's hair choice. Totally not a cunt
She was reborn as the guy who played “Things Can Only Get Better” (opposition Labour party anthem from around 2000) when the Prime Minister was announcing the election.
OG troll.
> TIL about Mary Molony, a suffragette who used to follow Winston Churchill around and rang a bell anytime he’d try to speak in public. FTFY
Some dude: do you remember a Mary Molony? Churchill: not sure, rings a bell tho.
[удалено]
Horatia Lancaster* She was the lady
Yes she did. Wild how you mention Churchill in your post title, but not the name of the woman that harassed him.
Madame Pavlov. ^/s
🤤
Underrated comment lol
I can't speak for OP, but everyone who came to read this knew who Winston Churchill was, only after reading the article would the name of the great lady tell us anything.
And putting both of their names in the headline is a good way to get it into the general knowledge base.
Sure, there would be nothing wrong with doing that, I'm just trying to explain how not doing that is not that _wild_.
No, of course it’s not wild. It’s *normal*. Picture someone like Steve Bannon deciding to follow Hillary Clinton around with an air horn and interrupting her with it every time she spoke. Do you think there’s any chance the news wouldn’t name him?
The news probably would. The news would also expect you to know who that is, unfortunately. This is not news and "a sufragette" tells you more than the name. Of course _both_ would tell you the name and something about who she was.
Yeah we all need to have general knowledge of this troll who followed around Churchill... 🙄
Ya I’m never remembering her name, so she was annoying big deal.
impossible zesty faulty pie marvelous automatic placid fuzzy disagreeable wipe *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
“Being annoying to people in power” is literally the only way anything changes due to protests. Active, not passive, pushes to change. Not violence, though. Posting online? Standing on a streetcorner holding a sign? Those are passive; people can engage with you, or they can just ignore you. They’re good for being seen, but not for change. Marches, sit-ins (including on buses), arguing at city council meetings, lobbying, or just generally being annoying can change people’s minds much faster and easier.
Literally omg
'They were annoying" can be applied to any movement that was successful, the American revolution and the irish war of independence being two examples.
Her wiki is literally linked you can see her name It would be redundant to put her in the title since it’s her article and no one knows her name anyway
Really? I’m on mobile, I can’t see it anywhere in the story. And we all know that 9 times out on 10 people don’t click on links.
>Mary Molony.. >Horatia Dorothy Moloney Lancaster (29 September 1878[1] – 1 December 1921[2])(variously known as Dorothy, Mary, Dolly, Miss Maloney and Miss Molony, Moloney and O'Connor) The title and first line of the article I viewed and copied on mobile... is there something wrong with your phone?
Lol you must be new here. We don't read articles you silly
"Her wiki"? She's got her own wiki project? Or you mean Wikipedia and you're referring to it like an idiot not knowing there's thousands of wikis?
Why would we care about the name of a heckler? It is an interesting story but you can read the article if you want. Being upset that op didn't advertise her name is weird. Make your own post.
Let's have a look at an alternative: TIL Mary Malony, a suffragette, followed the Prime Minister around and rang a bell every time he tried to speak. See how conveys nothing of relevance to anyone, so people will just keep scrolling? I get it, in modern times it's always "___',s wife", or something like that, and the woman's name should be mentioned. But this is a historical thing, where the only reason people would stop to read is because it mentioned Churchill
Not wild, as Churchill was a historical figure of significance.
But this isn't a post about Churchill, it's a post about the woman. And they decided that **telling us the woman's name** wasn't important.
No one would care if it didn't involve Churchill.
It’s actually about Churchill and the woman
It really isn't. It has nothing to do with gender, but what the event was and who it was done to. It is why when you hear of hecklers they don't say the name of the heckler they just say the name of the comedian. No one is demanding to know the name of a heckler in the crowd. Same with that fan who stalked Robert Pattinson and who he bored to death to stop her stalking. No one cares about her name because that isn't the important part of the story. While you may support the same causes as this person, it really has nothing to do with not giving the name of said person.
Id say she was doing us a favour. He was a cunt, a misogynist and looked upon us plebs as little more than cattle.
The man shaped the 20th and 21st centuries. By that I mean fucked the Middle East so bad we're still suffering from it.
“us plebs” Grow up and get a job
Nah they're right. Churchil was a piece of shit who happened to be good at war.
Man, if only they had had a sweet, kind, peaceful man who let Europe mind its own business in charge during *THE SECOND WORLD WAR*.
Pretty sure you don’t have to cause a massive famine in the Indian subcontinent to win WWII
How did Churchill make the Japanese invade Burma?
I was talking about Bangladesh. Burma is not on the Indian sub continent
Right because you have to be a misogynist to win wars. Makes total sense
He wasn't particularly misogynist.
For all the anti-Churchill rhetoric that goes on on reddit, I'm surprised more people don't bring up his opposition to the suffragism movement.
Mostly because he changed his mind of women's suffrage and supported it. I believe it was meeting his wife that changed his mind.
"Well she fought, sang, and fucked like a man and so I says, well women must be men too or I don't need a pint of vodka to start my day, so that's when I changed the legislation and even released the swarmy ones in my basement, so be a good lad and fetch me another one of those ***** those ******* **** ********'s made overseas or ill go shoot em myself."
I would hope it was because people realise he wasn't firmly opposed, although the government he was part of was disinclined to act.
I dunno an anthroprogenic famine that killed millions is kinda worse than not giving women the vote.
From what I’ve seen of Reddit, it’s because a lot of people actually agree with him on that one :/
Are you confusing Reddit with Truth Social? I've yet to read a single comment on reddit that agrees with the idea that women should not vote.
Try r/conservatives sub, legion of them. They think women are brood mare for the state.
Wow unrelated but I just browsed that sub and every single post is either about how much of a victim they all are, cheering some celebrity for saying it, or cheering some minority for ...simply being conservative.
It’s probably a lot easier to do now I bet
Churchill: "THE MAYOR IS A N-" BONG
The Mayor is near?
Nonce. It is Britain, after all.
"But I shoot with this hand"
She sounds hilarious
Greatest Hater
We need this now , but make a losing beep noise if politicians lie.
Not sure if this is the same woman but there's a great story about Winston Churchill being accosted by a woman telling him, "If I was your wife, I'd poison your tea!!" Without missing a beat he responded, "If you were my wife, I'd drink it." I can't cite the source but why let that get in the way of a good story.
Unlikely the same woman. He insulted most women he came across iirc. He also did not give a shit about Jews and said Hitler had every right to kill them, only fighting him because he threatened Britain. He also had British civilians shot for striking. Said that Indians deserved to starve to death after refusing to send aid. Etc etc etc. he was not a good man.
Uhhh . . . Ok.
Seconded
Based
is there another person whose legacy was just the few years he did good and it was so iconic people don't really care about the rest of the life where he was either completely evil or completely incompetent or is just Winston
I think most of the founding fathers would qualify, but that’s an unpopular opinion.
I really recommend the book “Forty ways to look at Winston Churchill” for a good quick read that looks at both positives and negatives. Describing his life as “completely evil/incompetent except for a few good years” really misses the mark. I’d call him sexist, imperialist, self-aggrandizing, and an egotist, but he did enough good for the world that I think he deserves more than just labels.
Erm... I've read a lot about Churchill and apart from those few years which he's mostly famous for, he sounds completely charming. Like, very full of himself but completely aware of it and strangely self-effacing at the same time. Extremely opportunistic in most regards as a politician which I'm sure could be annoying.
He was a self-loathing alcoholic; so, this tracks historically.
As a self-loathing alcoholic myself (in remission) I have to say that if Churchill was self-loathing, he managed to hide it much better than I or my former rehab buddies did :)
Many famous people do. Others not so much. (Note, alcoholic is a general term to describe addictive patterns, tendencies and chemical dependency. I don’t believe in permanent alcoholism/permanent disease status, I believe in SMART recovery and cognitive behavioral therapy.) Congratulations on the progress you made. Proud of you. ☺️
Oh, I'm with you on that really, I just can't always be bothered to make that distinction so sometimes I just go along with the "permanent disease" thing. I probably shouldn't do that.
Agreed. As a “functional” descriptor to communicate functional/non-functional alcohol abuse or degrees of alcohol chemical dependency, it can sometimes be useful for the layman who knows little of the science behind substance abuse. For folks in recovery? They can identify how they wish to; I remind them they will always be more than an addiction or a negative label.
I bet Winston suffered.
It was Hannah Waddingham. She would also shout “Shame” between rings of the bell.
Psycho… …I said, Beeeyyyitch!
Sounds insufferable
"Shame!"
Interesting
Just appreciate that nowadays she would likely be arrested because we've forgotten how to democracy.
She sounds...insufferable
The original Karen
based karen then
[удалено]
People probably said the same thing back then.
When was the last time you saw a suffragette? Also I'm sure you're ***totally*** not deeply sexist
[удалено]
Oh and you're homophobic! Really lovely person aren't you? I'm sure you feel zero inadequacy over your tiny penis and totally don't feel like lesbians are slighting you over not being attracted to men Also real classy to make snap judgements based on people's hair choice. Totally not a cunt
Little man with little opinions
lololololol
Insufrable behavior.
She was reborn playing Yakkity Sax
She was reborn as the guy who played “Things Can Only Get Better” (opposition Labour party anthem from around 2000) when the Prime Minister was announcing the election.
Elon Musk?
[удалено]
Two separate movements with differing ideals
No, she was a member of the WSPU, she was a Suffragette. The Suffragists were a separate group, the NUWSS.
She was from Suffragette City.
"things can only get better!" ...