Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:02 PM
muldoonthief's Avatar
muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 10,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by kunilou View Post
I came from an era where, if they spotted someone making bunny ears behind someone's head in a school photo, it was airbrushed out. So I can't get on board with righteous indignation.

And for the record, this photo of the 1965 St. Louis Cardinals was reshot.
It sounds like the yearbooks have been printed & delivered to the school, so there's no airbrushing option available at this point.
  #52  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:16 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
mmmm...Holocaust....4chan....they seem kinda different
Thank you for that excellent insight. Here's the thing, it's not 4chan, it's actual white supremacists using the symbol. So, your reference to 4chan is out of date. Regarding the idea that symbol meanings can change and one symbol vs. the other, maybe this will help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

You see, the swastika used to not have the meaning ascribed to it by the Nazis, and then it did. The OK sign never had any white supremacy meanings and now, depending on the usage and context, it does. Let me know if you have any questions.
  #53  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:19 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
In this case, though, actual white supremacists (such as the NZ shooter, for example, and those politicians mentioned elsewhere in this thread) have adopted the symbol at face value. Is it catering to the gullible and over-sensitive if actual bigots use the symbol un-ironically?
It's catering to the gullible and over-sensitive if you don't care whether it is being used ironically, un-ironically, or for reasons having nothing to do with race.

Read the email from the administrators. They didn't know or care what the intent was - they were afraid not to cater to the gullible and over-sensitive. Which is why the 4chan trolls can usually be assured of a target-rich environment. There are always some idiots who are afraid not to fall for it.

Regards,
Shodan
  #54  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:20 PM
KneadToKnow is offline
Voodoo Adult (Slight Return)
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Posts: 26,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Question -- isn't the "okay" sign ASL? I swear I read that somewhere.
Yes and no.
  #55  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:42 PM
Zyada is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Foat Wuth!
Posts: 5,109
You know what I'd like to see when something like this happens?

Have every POC in the school get together for a group shot, all showing the same and sign, and caption it something like "It's ok to be me!"

Put a wrench their little "let's let each other know we're racists while hiding it from other people" games.
  #56  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:43 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,321
Society nowadays is completely unequipped to deal with fundamental liberties. Instead of learning to deal with the triggering OK sign or whatever it needs to be completely eradicated. Well, the real world doesn't work that way. People are going to push buttons because the response is entertaining. The solution is to not worry to an unhealthy extreme about what other people think.
  #57  
Old 05-17-2019, 04:00 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,997
The moron who got himself banned from Wrigley Field entertained the shit out of himself.
  #58  
Old 05-17-2019, 04:08 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailboat View Post
I guarantee you that, with possible lone exceptions like your kid, high schoolers as a group are keenly aware of the gesture's racist significance.
Daughter briefly home from school and discussed before running out to work out with friends.

One. If this was one of my boys I'd say maybe. They were a pretty socially out of the loop lot. Her? Nope. She travels with agility in and out of many social groupings and knows what is known. In this school at least teens are pretty clueless of the gesture's recent adoption by White nationalist at least in all the circles she travels in (including the boy athletes to the eggheads and mixed across the SES and racial groups).

Your guarantee don't mean too much to me. My daughter's report does.

She has friends who worked on the yearbook so has some detail regarding the actual photo. Hand held upright above the shoulder taken of a yearbook staffer saying okay. No prank intended and no racist message intended. All approved by administrators before going to the printer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
That's correct. They're afraid of SJWs.
No.

We are a community filled with people who would proudly self-describe as being willing to fight for social justice and who do not see that label as anything other than a good thing. They are not afraid of us. They are afraid of being labelled or maybe even thought of as insensitive. They are afraid of a certain sort of press more than another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muldoonthief View Post
Does the email say what they plan to do with the yearbooks? Are they just all going in the dumpster? Is there any thought to obscuring/removing the pictures in question and distributing them anyway? It seems that if it's just one or a few pictures, this should be "fixable" with a sharpie or an exacto knife, though obviously I have no idea how many books we're talking about.
The school has about 3700 students. The books are printed and were due to be distributed. They are "looking at alternative options, and in the coming days we will share further details ..." It's prom week end and I doubt the yearbook staff will give time up to Sharpie out a couple of thousand books over something they think is absurd. The administrators doing it? Yeah right. Get teachers to? Uh huh.

Maybe the community backlash will get them to revisit the decision ... I dunno.
  #59  
Old 05-17-2019, 04:15 PM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
They are afraid of being labelled or maybe even thought of as insensitive. They are afraid of a certain sort of press more than another.
That's exactly what I said.
  #60  
Old 05-17-2019, 04:58 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,942
That ≠ SJW. Fighting for actual social justice is not a derisive thing and not about press or noisemaking; it is something that we should all want to do. I would much rather hang with those who fight for social justice than those who fight against it! I don't do it enough and I admire my friends who do it more. This is not an item of social justice and the press they fear would come from no warriors.
  #61  
Old 05-17-2019, 05:21 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
The moron who got himself banned from Wrigley Field entertained the shit out of himself.
Someone want to enlighten me? I'm looking at that picture, but I cannot see anything there.
  #62  
Old 05-17-2019, 05:29 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,997
https://www.washingtonpost.com/resiz...6DYWIV4U2I.PNG

I'll look for a link to the story...

Here's one:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/...ymbol-n1003681

Last edited by bobot; 05-17-2019 at 05:31 PM.
  #63  
Old 05-17-2019, 05:43 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by muldoonthief View Post
It sounds like the yearbooks have been printed & delivered to the school, so there's no airbrushing option available at this point.
Put stickers over every OK sign in the yearbook. If individual students want to peel the off, fine with me.
  #64  
Old 05-17-2019, 06:04 PM
Steve McQwark is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 250
I just asked my sophomore son if he had heard of any alternative meanings of the ok sign. He said no, but then he held his fingers in an upside down ok at his waist and said he had heard that was a white power sign.
  #65  
Old 05-17-2019, 06:50 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,997
It's real cute when it's done behind the head of a black man, isn't it Hurricane Ditka, Shodan and Octopus? What do you say, is everyone getting their laughs now?
  #66  
Old 05-18-2019, 01:48 AM
dba Fred is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
What's your opinion on epic troll campaigns?

Me personally, I think they're obnoxious and I'd prefer to live in a world where people didn't do shit like this. I think we should be nice to each other, and riling fellow humans up for a laugh is anti-social behavior that should be discouraged. Agree?
OK
(somebody had to say it)
  #67  
Old 05-18-2019, 03:01 AM
Covfefe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,386
https://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...508-story.html

Quote:
Epstein, Cubs president of baseball operations, said before Wednesday’s game that the organization has “made clear how egregious and unacceptable that behavior is and there’s no place for it in society, in baseball and at Wrigley Field.”
Quote:
Hours after Tuesday’s game, Kenney issued a statement warning that “such ignorant and repulsive behavior is not tolerated at Wrigley Field,” saying the incident was under thorough review “because no one should be subjected to this type of offensive behavior.”
ignorant
repulsive
offensive
egregious
unacceptable
no place for it in society

What context have we been given? He was near Doug Glanville.

Since this was a last minute decision, I'd be surprised if there isn't a connection here. Schools shouldn't always act like for-profit businesses which commonly may opt to bend way back to accommodate 5 disgruntled people on twitter. Giant businesses do not care so much about socially responsible messages for understanding context. A quick reversal of course with the yearbooks would not only be the right thing to do, it might foster conversations and critical thinking about why context matters.
  #68  
Old 05-18-2019, 03:31 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
This is very worrisome logic - 4chan started the "Okay hand sign is racist" joke with the precise intent of getting people to overreact to it, and that's exactly what society is doing. It's basically giving free license to people to distort something until we can't even enjoy normal mundane things anymore.
The thing about 4chan is that it's easy for them to create their own revisionist history.

I can't say for sure, but I find it much more likely that the sign was started by one of the many white supremacists who post there that have taken advantage of troll culture. They post racist shit and claim it's a joke against the NPCs, and thus get the idea to spread.

The nonnies use it, get some laughs out of pissing people off, but then start to feel persecuted. But the white supremacist side of 4chan embraces you, slowly slipping in more things.

It's what happened with Pepe. They coopted that symbol intentionally. And it is very likely what the "OK" sign was about. The alt-right needed a way to identify themselves while using plausible deniability, and so they spread this idea.

Even though there is a clear difference in how it is presented, it still is called the "OK" symbol by much of the press. Because that was the point. They can keep on creating their false persecution. And those who are most likely to notice will be on the left, since they make anti-bigotry part of their platform. So any liberal who notices will be called a snowflake not just by Nazis, but just by conservatives who want something to attack the liberals.

We can't see the picture. But, since most "PC run amok" and "SJWs taking over" stories turn out to be understandable once you look into them, I know which side I would bet on.
  #69  
Old 05-18-2019, 04:54 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
That ≠ SJW. Fighting for actual social justice is not a derisive thing and not about press or noisemaking; it is something that we should all want to do. I would much rather hang with those who fight for social justice than those who fight against it! I don't do it enough and I admire my friends who do it more. This is not an item of social justice and the press they fear would come from no warriors.
There's nothing wrong with fighting for actual social justice.

Somebody had to point out the OK sign to the school board (or whoever made the decision) and it wasn't a reporter.

I suppose you can make a distinction between "clean" SJWs and "dirty" SJWs, but the dirty ones are out there, and this is the effect they have.

The board's decision is a reaction to dirty SJWs being drones programmed (in this case) to kill every OK sign they see, because their motivation is body count, not social justice. And in this case, they got their scalp without firing a shot; the board said, we're not gonna sit around and wait for the drone, we'll kill ourselves.

I think you mentioned some blowback. Of the cohort you belong to, what would you say percentage-wise, is the breakdown of "this is ridiculous" vs. "this is ridiculous, but it's a price I'm willing to pay" vs. "What has happened to our community where our kids are now flashing white supremacy signs?"
  #70  
Old 05-18-2019, 05:20 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,156
...here's the thing about meme culture.

They are a bunch of fucking liars.

Lets take goobergate for example. Supporters of gamergate to this day insist it was "all about ethics in games journalism." But it was never about that. The "movement" started because a man got pissed off with his ex and wrote an excessively long, whiny, misogynist rant about her, including screenshots of chat-logs and private conversations.

They were never genuinely concerned about ethics. Because the "ethics" they were worried about was extremely selective and normally had something to do with women, feminism, or as someone has already mentioned the "SJW's."

"What is goobergate about" you ask them. And they will tell you straight to your face that its about "ethics."

They are lying too you.

And when they tell you that "it was all a prank" and "they are just trolling" and "it doesn't mean what you think it means" and "LOL the media got taken in" they are lying too you. Gas-lighting. Its what they do. They are fucking laughing at you.

Don't fall for their bullshit. The school did the right thing.
  #71  
Old 05-18-2019, 05:29 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
There's nothing wrong with fighting for actual social justice.

Somebody had to point out the OK sign to the school board (or whoever made the decision) and it wasn't a reporter.

I suppose you can make a distinction between "clean" SJWs and "dirty" SJWs, but the dirty ones are out there, and this is the effect they have.

The board's decision is a reaction to dirty SJWs being drones programmed (in this case) to kill every OK sign they see, because their motivation is body count, not social justice. And in this case, they got their scalp without firing a shot; the board said, we're not gonna sit around and wait for the drone, we'll kill ourselves.

I think you mentioned some blowback. Of the cohort you belong to, what would you say percentage-wise, is the breakdown of "this is ridiculous" vs. "this is ridiculous, but it's a price I'm willing to pay"vs. "What has happened to our community where our kids are now flashing white supremacy signs?"
...I just googled "dirty SJW" to see what people on the internet were saying about them. The first reddit post I clicked had a screenshot of a youtube video called "I hate women and minorities". So that's classy.

I'm an officially registered SJW. Pleased to meet you. Officially there are not "dirty" or "clean" SJW's. It isn't in our charter. So I'm not sure where you are getting your information from but you aren't talking about SJW's, that's for sure.
  #72  
Old 05-18-2019, 05:31 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,267
If someone's pissing on my boots, I'm not going to take their word that it's rain.
  #73  
Old 05-18-2019, 06:08 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
She has friends who worked on the yearbook so has some detail regarding the actual photo. Hand held upright above the shoulder taken of a yearbook staffer saying okay. No prank intended and no racist message intended. All approved by administrators before going to the printer.
Let us review. As it was suggested in prior posts, was this an upside down, hidden OK symbol commonly used by racists to sneak a white power symbol into publication/broadcast? No.

Was the OK symbol presented by an openly racist politician celebrating their swearing in by openly signaling the racist voters who put them in office with a symbol that they can happily interpret as meaning white power? No.

I'm going to go out here and say the school is in the wrong. OK still means OK, and it's fine to let a picture of someone making that symbol in that context appear in a publication.
  #74  
Old 05-18-2019, 06:19 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...I just googled "dirty SJW" to see what people on the internet were saying about them. The first reddit post I clicked had a screenshot of a youtube video called "I hate women and minorities". So that's classy.

I'm an officially registered SJW. Pleased to meet you. Officially there are not "dirty" or "clean" SJW's. It isn't in our charter. So I'm not sure where you are getting your information from but you aren't talking about SJW's, that's for sure.
Your charter.

Call them woke police if you like.

Nice little attempt at gaslighting there yourself. Did you google "clean SJW" to see what people are saying about them, lol?
  #75  
Old 05-18-2019, 06:49 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
Your charter.

Call them woke police if you like.

Nice little attempt at gaslighting there yourself. Did you google "clean SJW" to see what people are saying about them, lol?
...nope. "Woke Police" isn't in the charter either. And I'm going to have to decline your invitation to google anything further from the things that you post. I had to bleach my brain the first time: not keen to have to do that again.
  #76  
Old 05-18-2019, 06:58 AM
Covfefe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
I suppose you can make a distinction between "clean" SJWs and "dirty" SJWs, but the dirty ones are out there, and this is the effect they have.

The board's decision is a reaction to dirty SJWs being drones programmed (in this case) to kill every OK sign they see, because their motivation is body count, not social justice. And in this case, they got their scalp without firing a shot; the board said, we're not gonna sit around and wait for the drone, we'll kill ourselves.
It could also be a product of a "Let's slap trigger warnings on anything that seems upsetting" mindset that can be well-intentioned. I'm keeping my cynicism for those in the media with complicitly in manipulation of definitions...
  #77  
Old 05-18-2019, 07:15 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...nope. "Woke Police" isn't in the charter either. And I'm going to have to decline your invitation to google anything further from the things that you post. I had to bleach my brain the first time: not keen to have to do that again.
I'm sure you did google "clean SJW", and there's no results.

I didn't use "dirty SJW" as an established phrase, as in "That John Smith is a dirty SWJ." I could have used good and bad instead of clean and dirty. That was the context, and it's obvious.

You either were unable to comprehend this, or chose to ignore it, I think it's a 50/50 proposition due to previous brain bleaching maybe. And went and googled "dirty SJW" which of course is guaranteed to give you freaky deaky results.

And that is exactly the gaslighting behavior of a bad SJW. Or Trump. Point to A and say it's B.
  #78  
Old 05-18-2019, 07:32 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
I'm sure you did google "clean SJW", and there's no results.
...don't pretend to know what I did or didn't do.

Quote:
I didn't use "dirty SJW" as an established phrase, as in "That John Smith is a dirty SWJ." I could have used good and bad instead of clean and dirty. That was the context, and it's obvious.
Indeed. You chose to use dirty SJW. You could have chosen to use something less inflammatory. Thanks for having the guts to admit it.

Quote:
You either were unable to comprehend this, or chose to ignore it, I think it's a 50/50 proposition due to previous brain bleaching maybe. And went and googled "dirty SJW" which of course is guaranteed to give you freaky deaky results.
Oh no, I know exactly what you are doing. I didn't have to google "dirty SJW" to understand the context that you used it.

Quote:
And that is exactly the gaslighting behavior of a bad SJW. Or Trump. Point to A and say it's B.
LOL. Obvious hyperbole is not gaslighting. And if you think I"m a "bad SJW": doesn't that mean you also think I'm a dirty SJW?
  #79  
Old 05-18-2019, 07:50 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 315
I didn't look up "dirty SJW" before I used the words "clean" and "dirty" to differentiate between good and bad, so I wasn't aware that "dirty SJW" was a thing. If I had, I would have said good and bad instead.

You instinctively use the exact same distortion techniques as the side you're at war with. I'd call that being a bad SJW and I think it hurts your overall credibility, not to mention the collateral damage.
  #80  
Old 05-18-2019, 07:57 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
I didn't look up "dirty SJW" before I used the words "clean" and "dirty" to differentiate between good and bad, so I wasn't aware that "dirty SJW" was a thing. If I had, I would have said good and bad instead.

You instinctively use the exact same distortion techniques as the side you're at war with. I'd call that being a bad SJW and I think it hurts your overall credibility, not to mention the collateral damage.
...LOL.

I've been here since 2002. I doubt our little exchange here is going to damage my credibility. The only thing that people will remember you for is that you introduced the phrase "dirty SJW" to the boards. What a legacy.
  #81  
Old 05-18-2019, 08:25 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...LOL.

I've been here since 2002. I doubt our little exchange here is going to damage my credibility. The only thing that people will remember you for is that you introduced the phrase "dirty SJW" to the boards. What a legacy.
You can insist on things as many times as you like, they don't become true because of it.

Last edited by UnwittingAmericans; 05-18-2019 at 08:28 AM.
  #82  
Old 05-18-2019, 08:29 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
You can insist that as many times as you like, it won't become true.
...insist on what? That I've been here since 2002? That is beyond dispute.
  #83  
Old 05-18-2019, 08:54 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 31,714
In this thread everyone spells out "Okay" or abbreviates(?) it "OK", but in Raymond Chandler's novels he spells it "okey".

Anyone know what that's about?
  #84  
Old 05-18-2019, 08:59 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
... OK still means OK ...
Alright (notice how I didn't say "okay ..." ) ...

In this case, given the facts as we know them, there seems little question.

And clearly in certain contexts in which the intent to signify the white nationalist obscenity is fairly clear there is little question that the gesture should be condemned.

A broader question though is over how much power we grant groups to co-opt symbols such that standard usage to date by everyone else offends?

In this case I do think it was a hyper-anxiety over potentially triggering a negative reaction in a school that is dealing with criticism, featured in a nationally broadcast series, that they may not be doing as superb of a job with racial equity and educational disparities as they want to be thought of as doing, which they felt they had been doing, which they in fact have been doing ... if only we were graded on a curve , and which are, IMHO, over-reaching as a response. The school board recently passed "a new racial equity policy. The aim is to create an environment where students’ academic achievement and social and emotional growth are no longer predictable by race, socioeconomic status, or other social factors ..." and has eliminated the position of principal opting instead for an "executive director of equity and student success." Just as a gesture should be judged by context, a reaction is best understood in context as well.


But broadly, if racists decide to move to saying "okay" as their next code, do we grant them the power to make the rest of us have to eliminate the word from our usage?

I'm not sure where the line gets drawn. I'm solidly on the side that if I know there is a reasonable possibility that my saying something will offend someone that I will try to not say it, even if I mean no offense. But the line gets drawn somewhere.
  #85  
Old 05-18-2019, 09:17 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,255
Yeah, neo-nazis have been using the OK sign to identify themselves for quite some time. Regardless of whether this started with 4chan* (and, by the way, they're mostly a bunch of white supremacist shitbags as well), the joke has since lost its humor and became scary.

See, classical nazi-tier white supremacy doesn't work as a communication strategy. You could identify yourself by going up on stage and throwing out Roman salutes and seeing who goes along with you, but you're very quickly going to alienate 99.9% of the populace. But... a frog in your profile? Or a white OK sign? Or a glass of milk? That could very easily be innocuous, while communicating to the people who know what to look for exactly what you stand for. This plausible deniability, this dodging into 4chan Edge culture... It's intentional, and it works. Go back and read the Daily Stormer Style Guide if you aren't convinced of this - "This is obviously a ploy and I actually do want to gas kikes. But that’s neither here nor there."

So yeah. Those kids throwing out OK symbols might just be innocuous kids. Or they could be mimicking behavior they saw from, among others, Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopolous, the leader of the Las Vegas "Turning Point USA" chapter (throwing out the sign while a friend nearby screams, "We're gonna run the world! White Power! Fuck N*****s!"), and that cunt who shot up Christchurch. How can we tell the difference? Fuck if I know. But acting like anyone who reacts negatively to this is just "falling for a 4chan prank" is disingenuous. It shows that you either have not been paying attention to the news at all, or you have and have a vested interest in downplaying the symbols neo-nazis use.

Every time this topic comes up, I'm reminded of this video by Contrapoints. Specifically, the bit around 19:00, where she talks about how fascists are intentionally gaslighting us. It's heavy shit. It requires an understanding that we're fighting an enemy that hates us, wants to destroy us, but also looks like us and is intentionally couching their existence in plausible deniability.

Plausible deniability like the "It's ok to be white" campaign. And I'm sorry, but anyone who doesn't recognize that for what it is... Are you 2 years old? Does "I'm not touching you" sound like a reasonable excuse to you, or something? Obviously nobody has a problem with white people, but if someone is putting that out there explicitly to recruit for racist groups and provoke a negative reaction, of course they're going to get a negative reaction! Innocuous statements become less innocuous when stated by neo-nazis. I don't know how that's a complicated thing to understand.


*(Also, as Banquet Bear points out, and 4chan /b/ kindly states at the top of the page, "The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact." These people - chantards, white supremacists, and the overlap of the two - lie nonstop. You cannot take them at their world.)



Also, I realize this is somewhat off topic, but a quick aside.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
That's correct. They're afraid of SJWs.
"Social Justice Warrior" is a bit like "Beta Cuck Soyboy". It's a meaningless perjorative invented by douchebags, primarily used by douchebags against anyone who isn't a douchebag or who objects to douchebag behavior, and if you're using the term, it instantly increases the odds of you being a douchebag. Generally speaking, I've found that I've missed nothing of value by just ignoring anyone who uses the term outright, and to combat the pollution of language with meaningless buzzwords, I encourage anyone who cares about anything other than "how to trigger the libs" (oh hey another one of those 3-word phrases!) to follow my example.

Either define the damn term (the only coherent definition I can come up with that actually fits the use cases is "Literally anyone who actually cares about any issue that isn't about straight white cisgendered men"; anything else false to cover how many people this perjorative gets tossed at) or stop using a shitty right-wing snarl word. And no, "Non-Player-Character" is not better.

Thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
That ≠ SJW. Fighting for actual social justice is not a derisive thing and not about press or noisemaking; it is something that we should all want to do.
Then stop using a bullshit right-wing buzzword. "SJW" doesn't actually mean anything.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 05-18-2019 at 09:17 AM.
  #86  
Old 05-18-2019, 10:38 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,346
If that yearbook is not published, then the evil-doers have won. It's that simple.

If I understand OP correctly, the high-schoolers' OK signs were all or almost all in the upright benign position, correct? (Though it seems dreadful that America has "progressed" to the point where we have to parse the finger positions so carefully.)
  #87  
Old 05-18-2019, 11:03 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
It's real cute when it's done behind the head of a black man, isn't it Hurricane Ditka, Shodan and Octopus? What do you say, is everyone getting their laughs now?
Cute? As cute as how rapidly 4chan can make the professional offenderati dance and preen for social approval. At same point it has to be embarrassing to be manipulated to such a degree. Then, on a pragmatic level, by treating every potentially offensive word, hand position, etc as taboo as saying “Voldemort” the environment for actually dealing with ideas and language as adults is disappearing. Which ultimately is probably the end game for those that employ the tactic of hysterical overreaction.

Last edited by octopus; 05-18-2019 at 11:08 AM.
  #88  
Old 05-18-2019, 11:10 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Cute? As cute as how rapidly 4chan can make the professional offenderati dance and preen for social approval. At same point it has to be embarrassing to be manipulated to such a degree. Then, on a pragmatic level, by treating every potentially offensive word as taboo as saying “Voldemort” the environment for actually dealing with ideas and language as adults is disappearing. Which ultimately is probably the end game for the tactic of hysterical overreaction.
So. 4chan succeeded and you're proud of their efforts? Hoping for more of the same? Make America Great Again! Got it.
  #89  
Old 05-18-2019, 11:17 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
So. 4chan succeeded and you're proud of their efforts? Hoping for more of the same? Make America Great Again! Got it.
Yeah 4chan succeeded. Not that that is in any way difficult due to the uncritically thinking and emotional development stunted yet disproportionately loud group that inhabit modern media. Proud of 4chan? Not at all. That website is infested with all sorts of critters. No, I’m not proud of 4chan pranking the offenderati. That’s not an achievement. I’m embarrassed for and dismayed by the lack of emotional and intellectual maturity that is necessary to support fundamental freedoms.

Even the op-ed writers at the NYT are beginning to criticize the overly sensitive nature of modern Americans.

Last edited by octopus; 05-18-2019 at 11:18 AM.
  #90  
Old 05-18-2019, 11:34 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
.... It shows that you either have not been paying attention to the news at all, or you have and have a vested interest in downplaying the symbols neo-nazis use.
Funny enough I do pay attention to the news, a variety of sites, much more than most High Schoolers do and I suspect more than the average American, and this hadn't been a thing I was aware of. Admittedly I don't pay much attention to being hip with the newest fads among alt righters.

Are you therefore telling me that I therefore have a vested interest in downplaying the symbols neo-nazis use?
Quote:
Then stop using a bullshit right-wing buzzword. "SJW" doesn't actually mean anything.
Also funny thing. Right wingers and others of various stripes can try to make the words "social justice" mean something negative. Too fucking bad. I still claim the phrase as meaning what it has always meant, something that we as ethical humans have an obligation to fight for. They do not get to claim whatever word and symbol they want away from me at their whim. If you want to be manipulated by them that is your call, but I won't be.

I won't be afraid to say that I started in my current job in 88 because the number 88 is also used as a Nazi signifier. I am not giving up signing okay to mean okay. I am not ceding the phrase social justice to those who try to make that an insult. No.

Last edited by DSeid; 05-18-2019 at 11:34 AM.
  #91  
Old 05-18-2019, 11:35 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
But this is purposefully engineered meaning, not accidental. The "OK" hand symbol was an intentional troll campaign by 4chan to get the public to consider a harmless gesture to be harmful. By caving in to 4chan on this, society is giving trolls all the power. The lesson 4chan has taken or will take away from this is that they hold the reins and can control society's view of things as they please. They could get society to no longer do handshakes, high fives, clapping in concerts, say "peace out" or whatever on the basis of those suddenly becoming racist or offensive.


We need to stop letting the trolls win.
Do we need to acknowledge the ones that they've already won?
  #92  
Old 05-18-2019, 11:38 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Part of the “prank” included them trying to spread the word that’s clapping in anti-feminist.


Could you rephrase that, preferably in English?
  #93  
Old 05-18-2019, 11:44 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I go by the facts as presented in the email I was sent. There is no accusation of the okay sign having been done as a prank or with bad intent. The issue is exclusively that the in addition to its usually understood meaning "the gesture has more recently become associated with white nationalism", and that association is by itself enough to not risk a "potential negative impact", again, "regardless of intent".

I do not think that means that the school administrators are easily triggered liberal snowflakes, liberal though they may be, but I do think it means that they are excessively worried about not appearing sensitive enough to those who might claim being racially offended, and who tend to be loud. They'd rather the bad press of excessive concern about those issues than any noise about not caring enough about them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
That's correct. They're afraid of SJWs.
On the whole, it's probably better to do what a SJW wants than to do what a white supremacist wants.
  #94  
Old 05-18-2019, 12:12 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...I just googled "dirty SJW" to see what people on the internet were saying about them. The first reddit post I clicked had a screenshot of a youtube video called "I hate women and minorities". So that's classy.

I'm an officially registered SJW. Pleased to meet you. Officially there are not "dirty" or "clean" SJW's. It isn't in our charter. So I'm not sure where you are getting your information from but you aren't talking about SJW's, that's for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
Your charter.

Call them woke police if you like.

Nice little attempt at gaslighting there yourself. Did you google "clean SJW" to see what people are saying about them, lol?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...don't pretend to know what I did or didn't do.



Indeed. You chose to use dirty SJW. You could have chosen to use something less inflammatory. Thanks for having the guts to admit it.



Oh no, I know exactly what you are doing. I didn't have to google "dirty SJW" to understand the context that you used it.



LOL. Obvious hyperbole is not gaslighting. And if you think I"m a "bad SJW": doesn't that mean you also think I'm a dirty SJW?
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
I didn't look up "dirty SJW" before I used the words "clean" and "dirty" to differentiate between good and bad, so I wasn't aware that "dirty SJW" was a thing. If I had, I would have said good and bad instead.

You instinctively use the exact same distortion techniques as the side you're at war with. I'd call that being a bad SJW and I think it hurts your overall credibility, not to mention the collateral damage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...LOL.

I've been here since 2002. I doubt our little exchange here is going to damage my credibility. The only thing that people will remember you for is that you introduced the phrase "dirty SJW" to the boards. What a legacy.
To me, at least, the term SJW (with or without a modifying adjective) is ALWAYS a pejorative term, intended to imply that the target is, at best, a non-serious, bandwagon-hopping dilettante who is more interested in telegraphing their membership in the morally right side in every situation than in actually DOING the right thing, and can therefore have their every utterance dismissed out of hand.

I'd be interested in learning more about the existence of any group that actually calls itself "Social Justice Warriors," though.

And the word "woke" being used as an adjective strikes me as being pejoratively dismissive in ALL cases.
  #95  
Old 05-18-2019, 12:15 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
On the whole, it's probably better to do what a SJW wants than to do what a white supremacist wants.
What are you imagining each of those want in this case?

Are you imagining a white supremacist is going dang some kid signing okay with benign intent isn’t going to be seen?

Do you imagine there is an issue of social justice at play that those who feel such is worth fighting for are celebrating with kids being told they can’t have their yearbooks because a benign sign might have the potential to be misunderstood and thereby to offend?

If anything I imagine the supremacist being happy that a bunch of progressive students and their families are pissed off by this. No they haven’t “won” but it might bring them a smile.
__________________
Oy.

Last edited by DSeid; 05-18-2019 at 12:16 PM.
  #96  
Old 05-18-2019, 12:16 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Alright (notice how I didn't say "okay ..." ) ...
"Alright" isn't a word. Your argument (and by association, every position you have ever taken) is invalid.



  #97  
Old 05-18-2019, 12:20 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
To me, at least, the term SJW (with or without a modifying adjective) is ALWAYS a pejorative term, intended to imply that the target is, at best, a non-serious, bandwagon-hopping dilettante who is more interested in telegraphing their membership in the morally right side in every situation than in actually DOING the right thing, and can therefore have their every utterance dismissed out of hand.

I'd be interested in learning more about the existence of any group that actually calls itself "Social Justice Warriors," though.

And the word "woke" being used as an adjective strikes me as being pejoratively dismissive in ALL cases.
I have commonly heard “woke” as a positive and grew up with “social justice” as part of my religious education, the actual meaning of “tzedakah”, misunderstood as “charity” but in fact meaning the ethical obligation to fight for social justice.
  #98  
Old 05-18-2019, 12:28 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Also funny thing. Right wingers and others of various stripes can try to make the words "social justice" mean something negative. Too fucking bad. I still claim the phrase as meaning what it has always meant, something that we as ethical humans have an obligation to fight for. They do not get to claim whatever word and symbol they want away from me at their whim. If you want to be manipulated by them that is your call, but I won't be.
It occurs to me that "social justice" does not have to mean something negative* in order for "Social Justice Warrior" to. Yeah, it sucks, but it's the world we're living in, and insisting that it isn't does nothing to advance your interests.





*it doesn't
  #99  
Old 05-18-2019, 12:32 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
What are you imagining each of those want in this case?
Me? I'm imagining that a SJW wants things that will make society more just; and that a white supremacist, while not necessarily wanting the right to own human beings with dark skin as property, wants people with dark skin to understand that that option is still on the table.

And in this case specifically? Please refer to the above, and apply it to EVERY case.

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 05-18-2019 at 12:33 PM.
  #100  
Old 05-18-2019, 12:47 PM
Covfefe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Me? I'm imagining that a SJW wants things that will make society more just; and that a white supremacist, while not necessarily wanting the right to own human beings with dark skin as property, wants people with dark skin to understand that that option is still on the table.

And in this case specifically? Please refer to the above, and apply it to EVERY case.
So rather than not distribute the yearbooks, it is better that they did not distribute the yearbooks.

Are you aware of white supremacists who would feel perfectly fine if they never again encountered another human who is non-white? No room for them in that conceptualization.

Last edited by Covfefe; 05-18-2019 at 12:52 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017