Of course there is, and of course they have some secret signs, note that are pages of those. It is just that- in 99.99% of the time- the Ok sign isnt one of them.
There is One, count them- one example and even that one is doubtful. And of course, a white supremacist who is doing their taxes or whatever will use:
12
13
14
18
23
28
311
318
38
43
511
737
83
88
9%
100%
Somewhere without it being a “supre secret” racist sign.
There are a number of entries in that list that I immediately recognize as symbols used to glorify and reinforce the idea that my family and I would be better off dead, and to lionize people who murdered my family in the past.
But sure, go ahead and pretend like you don’t know that.
Do you know what ‘context’ is? Because your posts taken in context imply that you don’t.
You’re doing about as well convincing people that “OK” as a racist symbol is a hoax as you did convincing people that “Big Tobacco” pays for all smoking on the big screen & small screen.
I’m having a little trouble walking through the confusion here. Yes, dog-whistles are most commonly racists making a racist signal. Sometimes it’s a different thing like sexism or homophobia, but it’s always about using indirect language to communicate an unpopular message to an audience who will react in some expected, useful way.
Dog-whistles can also be trolling, which changes the mechanics somewhat. Instead of dog-whistling for a friendly audience, you can dog-whistle to trigger the opposition, which signals your allies that you’re effective at riling up the opposition, which they love.
Take for instance Laura Ingraham’s Nazi salute at the RNC. It’s clearly a Nazi salute. I 'm sure Ingraham is a white supremacist and is happy if she rallied some neo-Nazis to her side. But I don’t think that was her main goal here… her intent was to show her base that she’s good at triggering the libs (who are always glad to oblige).
So yeah. Dog-whistling is for safely communicating an unpopular message to a sympathetic audience, or to a hostile crowd who will reliably generate some usable outrage.
I think the distinction between a euphemism and a dog whistle, is that a person using a euphemism won’t deny it’s a euphemism if asked. If you ask someone what they mean by pro-life, BLM, or affordable housing they will tell you. If you ask someone what they mean by 1488, they will lie. (of course this only applies if the speaker actually meant the secret/dogwhistle meaning, if a Jainist says they are pro-life, they probably don’t just mean making abortion illegal)
My confusion is how people can straight-faced make the argument “but it’s not a racist signal, it’s a trolling signal! People using it to troll doesn’t indicate they’re racist at all!”
This is really easy to say. Good luck proving it. I think it’s bullshit that you’re asserting because it confirms your biases.
That is not my argument.
My argument is that Liberals were trolled into thinking Ok was a racist symbol, based upon 4Chan trolling and a couple pictures of crazy dudes making the OK sign- for unknown reasons.
If Obama makes the Ok sign- it is racist? No, of course not. If a racist makes the Ok sign is it racist? Maybe, but not necessarily.
The 4chan hoax succeeded all too well and ceased being a hoax: Neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klansmen and other white nationalists began using the gesture in public to signal their presence and to spot potential sympathisers and recruits. For them, the letters formed by the hand were not O and K, but W and P, for “white power”.
:snip:
The gesture was in the headlines again after Roger Stone, a longtime political adviser to US president Donald Trump, met with a group of white nationalists known as Proud Boys in Salem, Oregon, in 2018 and was photographed displaying it with them.
:snip:
That the gesture has migrated beyond ironic trolling culture to become a “sincere expression of white supremacy”, according to the Anti-Defamation League, could be seen in March 2019 when Brenton Tarrant, the white supremacist accused of killing 50 people in back-to-back mass shootings at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, smiled and flashed the sign to reporters at a court hearing on his case.
Some people who have used the gesture publicly in a way that seemed to suggest support for racist views have faced consequences. In 2018, the US Coast Guard suspended an officer who appeared to use the sign on camera during an MSNBC broadcast. Later that year, four police officers in Jasper, Alabama, were suspended after a photo was published showing them flashing the sign below the waist.
Speaking of “context”:
“You cannot assume. That’s the whole problem,” he said. “You absolutely cannot assume what someone is doing when they make the OK sign unless there is contextual information. If the person making the sign is a known white supremacist, then one may assume. If the person making the sign has hate symbols on their clothes, or tattoos or jewelry, perhaps one can make an assumption. But in the absence of contextual evidence, you can’t assume.”
The nazis took a Buddhist symbol-- the swastika – and trolled liberals into believing it was a symbol of nazism and white supremacy by posing with swastikas whenever they were doing nazi things. Truly they were epic trolls!
is 1972 on that list?
Though given how much press this has gotten, I have to wonder how many non-racists are going to be casually making the gesture in situations where they’re being photographed for public consumption.
When you’re trolling in that manner, you are also using the gesture to signal to white supremacists that you support white supremacism. The two go hand-in-hand. There is no “innocent” triggering-the-libs. If you’re willing to look like a white supremacist, then you’re also a white supremacist.
Before it became common knowledge, I’d say that “420” would fit. i.e. those in the know understand exactly what is meant, and everyone else doesn’t even notice.
I’m not sure I actually see anybody making that argument.
I do see a more nuanced argument to be had… that a racist person can use a racially charged phrase or gesture to get a response out of racist people, all with very conscious racism in mind, but the actual intent is less about racism and more about triggering the libs. I think this is the truth, though I don’t know how useful this truth actually is.
So, while I agree there will definitely be some trolls who are also racist, it’s absolutely possible to troll using something that you don’t believe in. For example, a troll could use “transwomen are women” and state that they self-identify as a woman, even if they actually feel like and present as a man, to troll people by entering women’s bathrooms. They do not have to believe that transwomen are women in order to do this. So I think it’s definitely plausible that non-racist people could use racist dog-whistles to troll (sure, that makes them assholes but it doesn’t necessarily make them racist). Of course, I’m not sure how common such a phenomenon would be, nor how you can tell a non-racist troll from a racist troll without further evidence of their other behaviour. If I were to guess, the majority of people who are trolling using white supremacy dog-whistles probably have some racist tendencies (but then again, pretty much everyone has some racist tendencies) - but I would think that a significant number of them would be against actual white supremacy, they just like triggering lberals.
Presuming I was parsing him correctly, DrDeth seemed to have been making the argument that since 4chan deliberately came up with the idea of co-opting the OK symbol, that means that the use of it to troll liberals does not indicate that the person using it is signaling that they’re racist.
Of course this is seemingly accompanied by the assumption that nobody is using the OK symbol to troll either (except, maybe, that convict guy) - the sudden upsurge in racists using it is, presumably, just because they thing that everything’s going great in the world now. A plausible denial, to be sure.
(I’m sure he’s going to tell me I parsed him wrong, so I’ll apologize in advance. Sorry for parsing you wrong.)