You can insist on things as many times as you like, they don’t become true because of it.
…insist on what? That I’ve been here since 2002? That is beyond dispute.
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?
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.
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.
“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! 
Then stop using a bullshit right-wing buzzword. “SJW” doesn’t actually mean anything.
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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.
Do we need to acknowledge the ones that they’ve already won?
Could you rephrase that, preferably in English?
On the whole, it’s probably better to do what a SJW wants than to do what a white supremacist wants.
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.
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.
“Alright” isn’t a word. Your argument (and by association, every position you have ever taken) is invalid.
:dubious:
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.
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
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.