Someone want to enlighten me? I’m looking at that picture, but I cannot see anything there.
Put stickers over every OK sign in the yearbook. If individual students want to peel the off, fine with me.
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.
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?
OK
(somebody had to say it)
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.
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.
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?”
…here’s the thing about meme culture.
They are a bunch of fucking liars.
Lets take goobergatefor 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.
…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.
If someone’s pissing on my boots, I’m not going to take their word that it’s rain.
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.
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.
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…
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.
…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?
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.