10 ms·

> and the mention of the Pepe meme on her official website mentioning a meme on her website is disqualifying?

imron 10y ago
> huh? It's horrifying https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-fr... Edit: In response to your edit, she's attacking a cartoon frog. In seriousness. Not only that, but she's trying to attribute characteristics to that frog that simply aren't any core part of why people post Pepe memes. All of that questions the sensibilities of her campaign. Basically her campaign is going all out trying to paint Trump as racist, because that's really all they have left at this point, and even that isn't working too well.
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  I especially love the pop-up modal asking me "Is Trump unfit to be President?" on that site. There's only a single button (I Agree), and clicking the X in the corner to close the modal causes the button to be pushed at the same time. For someone as "experienced" as Clinton, her campaign is astoundingly incompetent.
  - conanbatt 10y ago
    I clicked the link, saw that popup and had to share that abomination. What the hell.
  - jungletek 10y ago
    You say incompetent, I say intentional. It's an inverse Hanlon's Razor situation.
    - cloakandswagger 10y ago
      The whole point of click-bait ads with fake vote buttons is to entice people with the perception of choice. Only giving me one option offends my sensibilities, even if I belong to that person's camp. I can't think of a person on earth who enjoys having their autonomy removed. So at best you've pissed off the people who support you, and at worst you've reinforced the other camp's argument that you're an authoritarian control-freak.
  - eli 10y ago
    Trump just blasted out a fundraiser text message with a broken link. Hard to find good tech people I guess.
  - PostOnce 10y ago
    Literally the first thing you see visiting her site is an attack that you are forced to join in on, rather than talk of what she's going to do for the country. "Guy B is bad, elect me." is not as strong an argument as "I can and will do X to improve Y, guy B can't." And you still get to attack in B! How can I in good conscience vote either party? I would be infinitely amused if everyone without talking about it voted for a third party out of spite and it was a total shock the day after. "Green party, bafflingly, wins election", or whatever.
    - colejohnson66 10y ago
      The problem with third parties is that it is, somehow, a vote for Trump[0] and Hillary[1]. Then there's the "lesser of two evils" fallacy[2] some Hillary supporters use. It's actually sad how people think there's no escape from the two party system. [0]: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/08/if_you_vote_third_party_you_re_voting_for_capt_donald_trump.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201... [1]: http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/08/11/nevertrump-youre-not-voting-trump-youre-voting-hillary/ http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/08/11/nevertrump-yo... [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principl...
      - adamrezich 10y ago
        We don't have a two-party system. The DNC and GOP just want us to believe that we do. The more we keep believing that we do, the more this same crap will keep happening every four to eight years.
      - PostOnce 10y ago
        It's not, though. If you dislike both of them equally, and it doesn't matter to you who wins, and you vote a third party, the difference to you is the same... you just have less on your conscience now because you didn't contribute to a particular side -- and there's the slight, lotto-winning-odds chance that everyone else quietly did the same thing... What the hell, I'll give it a shot.
      - 10y ago
  - tomjakubowski 10y ago
    > There's only a single button (I Agree), and clicking the X in the corner to close the modal causes the button to be pushed at the same time. Huh? No it doesn't. It just closes the modal. Pressing the button does a different thing. Try it out in a fresh Incognito window, or equivalent.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  Wow, not a single line on that page about what she believes, what she stands for.
  - akhilcacharya 10y ago
    That's because you can find that here: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
    - Klathmon 10y ago
      I just find the whole "attack others without any mention of myself" thing to be so... Off putting. It's sad that it's so common, and scary effective. I just wish that it wasn't this way and that things like attack ads would at least include some info on how the candidate is different/better than the one they are attacking. The sad truth is that I believe many of the same things as one of the major candidates, and when looking at the issues I do agree with some from the other, but the way they almost entirely ignore the issues and spend most of their time attacking others doesn't fill me with confidence that either one wont just bring that toxicity into an already toxic and gridlocked political system. Yelling half-truths and over exaggerating the "enemy" isn't going to help the country at all. And IMO that stuff has no place on the offical website of a candidate.
      - adamrezich 10y ago
        The actual reason for all of this is because both major American political parties have discovered, as many corporations have over the past few years, that the only thing that matters when it comes to persuasion is appeals to one's identity and emotions directly. As it turns out, people don't give a crap about logic, reason, facts, deduction... our day-to-day lives are complex enough as it is, only a few of us can actually afford the time to research all of the media's claims, and thus, reactionary, controversial, attention-grabbing headlines (not full articles, who reads those anyways?) dictate what people believe is the truth. So yeah, you and I look at that modal popup and think, "ew gross, why are you trying THIS hard to shove this negative image of your opponent down my throat, before I can even see a single fact about you and your campaign?", but I can totally see why they would do such a thing. People are very susceptible to being persuaded by these strong emotional accusations—it seems to me that the dialog is saying, "hey, you're not one of those filthy TRUMP supporters, ARE YOU? If not, prove it by clicking this button below." I believe that such a persuasive device is far more effective than either of us can imagine.
- akhilcacharya 10y ago
  > because that's really all they have left at this point It's really not, the reason why they keep hammering it home is because his vocal support among the fringes is unprecedented in the modern era. They've got plenty of things to attack him on - which they do.
  - imron 10y ago
    A more cynical view is that they keep hammering it home because Trump's outreach to black voters is working enough that it has become electorally significant [0]. Polls show he currently has historically high support among black voters - and not just for himself, but out of any Republican candidate over the last few decades [1], and it's high enough that it could tip the election. 0: http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/ http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/ (scroll to 'by race/ethnicity'). 1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/11/how-black-voters-could-determine-the-2016-election/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/11/ho...
    - akhilcacharya 10y ago
      That's unlikely. The LATimes tracking poll is known to be unorthodox in its methodology, it's meant to track fluctuations in support more than actual support. Trump has not broken ~6% in any other swing state polls or national polls that I've seen, sometimes he's in 4th place behind Johnson and Stein. As it turns out, delegitimizing and spreading conspiracy theories about a wildly popular president in a community does not make people in a community fans of you. Most analysts don't think the outreach was targeted at black voters at all, but rather white moderates, who are more persuadable and numerous in number. 0: http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12587672/donald-trump-s-black-outreach-isn-t-for-black-voters-it-s-for-wavering-white-republicans http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12587672/donald-trump-s-black-o...
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    ...the fringes... Who is this? How can I tell who of my neighbors is in this group? Having made that determination, how should I treat those neighbors?
- saboot 10y ago
  You haven't been paying attention. Yes, pepe was fine, and yes many people who post it do so with no ill intent. But you are ignoring that people who are proudly racist are openly admitting to using pepe specifically to broaden and popularize explicitly racist ideas. That deserves to have light shown on it.
  - adamrezich 10y ago
    Does it? What does it prove? Why does shining the spotlight on self-proclaimed Internet racists actually accomplish? Especially seeing as how much of the racism seems to mostly be in service of attention-seeking? What do you get out of proving that self-proclaimed racists [do x], as a small subset of people who [do x]?
    - saboot 10y ago
      Not self proclaimed internet racists, we're talking about white nationalists and race segregationists like Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor discussing Pepe as a way to "speak truth to power".
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - snowwrestler 10y ago
      It helps motivate others to help keep their standard-bearer out of the most powerful office in the world.
  - imron 10y ago
    > But you are ignoring that people who are proudly racist are openly admitting to using pepe specifically to broaden and popularize explicitly racist ideas You mean like the prominent white supremacists quoted in the article linked to by that expose? Who later turned out to be a couple of trolls making up stuff for shits and giggles to see what sort of ridiculous things they could make journalists write? (http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/14/heres-how-two-twitter-pranksters-convinced-the-world-that-pepe-the-frog-meme-is-just-a-front-for-white-nationalism/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/14/heres-how-two-twitter-pran...) Giving credibility to that just makes you look foolish. > using pepe specifically to broaden and popularize explicitly racist ideas I await Hillary Clinton's expose on Mickey Mouse https://www.google.com/search?q=mickey+mouse+nazi&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=mickey+mouse+nazi&tbm=isch
akhilcacharya 10y ago
It is if you're short-sighted enough to accept an anti-innovation candidate on a website about technology & entrepreneurship because you thought a explainer on a meme was inappropriate.

imron 10y ago

> huh? It's horrifying https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-fr... Edit: In response to your edit, she's attacking a cartoon frog. In seriousness. Not only that, but she's trying to attribute characteristics to that frog that simply aren't any core part of why people post Pepe memes. All of that questions the sensibilities of her campaign. Basically her campaign is going all out trying to paint Trump as racist, because that's really all they have left at this point, and even that isn't working too well.

cloakandswagger 10y ago
I especially love the pop-up modal asking me "Is Trump unfit to be President?" on that site. There's only a single button (I Agree), and clicking the X in the corner to close the modal causes the button to be pushed at the same time. For someone as "experienced" as Clinton, her campaign is astoundingly incompetent.
- conanbatt 10y ago
  I clicked the link, saw that popup and had to share that abomination. What the hell.
- jungletek 10y ago
  You say incompetent, I say intentional. It's an inverse Hanlon's Razor situation.
  - cloakandswagger 10y ago
    The whole point of click-bait ads with fake vote buttons is to entice people with the perception of choice. Only giving me one option offends my sensibilities, even if I belong to that person's camp. I can't think of a person on earth who enjoys having their autonomy removed. So at best you've pissed off the people who support you, and at worst you've reinforced the other camp's argument that you're an authoritarian control-freak.
- eli 10y ago
  Trump just blasted out a fundraiser text message with a broken link. Hard to find good tech people I guess.
- PostOnce 10y ago
  Literally the first thing you see visiting her site is an attack that you are forced to join in on, rather than talk of what she's going to do for the country. "Guy B is bad, elect me." is not as strong an argument as "I can and will do X to improve Y, guy B can't." And you still get to attack in B! How can I in good conscience vote either party? I would be infinitely amused if everyone without talking about it voted for a third party out of spite and it was a total shock the day after. "Green party, bafflingly, wins election", or whatever.
  - colejohnson66 10y ago
    The problem with third parties is that it is, somehow, a vote for Trump[0] and Hillary[1]. Then there's the "lesser of two evils" fallacy[2] some Hillary supporters use. It's actually sad how people think there's no escape from the two party system. [0]: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/08/if_you_vote_third_party_you_re_voting_for_capt_donald_trump.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201... [1]: http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/08/11/nevertrump-youre-not-voting-trump-youre-voting-hillary/ http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/08/11/nevertrump-yo... [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principl...
    - adamrezich 10y ago
      We don't have a two-party system. The DNC and GOP just want us to believe that we do. The more we keep believing that we do, the more this same crap will keep happening every four to eight years.
    - PostOnce 10y ago
      It's not, though. If you dislike both of them equally, and it doesn't matter to you who wins, and you vote a third party, the difference to you is the same... you just have less on your conscience now because you didn't contribute to a particular side -- and there's the slight, lotto-winning-odds chance that everyone else quietly did the same thing... What the hell, I'll give it a shot.
    - 10y ago
- tomjakubowski 10y ago
  > There's only a single button (I Agree), and clicking the X in the corner to close the modal causes the button to be pushed at the same time. Huh? No it doesn't. It just closes the modal. Pressing the button does a different thing. Try it out in a fresh Incognito window, or equivalent.
Klathmon 10y ago
Wow, not a single line on that page about what she believes, what she stands for.
- akhilcacharya 10y ago
  That's because you can find that here: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    I just find the whole "attack others without any mention of myself" thing to be so... Off putting. It's sad that it's so common, and scary effective. I just wish that it wasn't this way and that things like attack ads would at least include some info on how the candidate is different/better than the one they are attacking. The sad truth is that I believe many of the same things as one of the major candidates, and when looking at the issues I do agree with some from the other, but the way they almost entirely ignore the issues and spend most of their time attacking others doesn't fill me with confidence that either one wont just bring that toxicity into an already toxic and gridlocked political system. Yelling half-truths and over exaggerating the "enemy" isn't going to help the country at all. And IMO that stuff has no place on the offical website of a candidate.
    - adamrezich 10y ago
      The actual reason for all of this is because both major American political parties have discovered, as many corporations have over the past few years, that the only thing that matters when it comes to persuasion is appeals to one's identity and emotions directly. As it turns out, people don't give a crap about logic, reason, facts, deduction... our day-to-day lives are complex enough as it is, only a few of us can actually afford the time to research all of the media's claims, and thus, reactionary, controversial, attention-grabbing headlines (not full articles, who reads those anyways?) dictate what people believe is the truth. So yeah, you and I look at that modal popup and think, "ew gross, why are you trying THIS hard to shove this negative image of your opponent down my throat, before I can even see a single fact about you and your campaign?", but I can totally see why they would do such a thing. People are very susceptible to being persuaded by these strong emotional accusations—it seems to me that the dialog is saying, "hey, you're not one of those filthy TRUMP supporters, ARE YOU? If not, prove it by clicking this button below." I believe that such a persuasive device is far more effective than either of us can imagine.
akhilcacharya 10y ago
> because that's really all they have left at this point It's really not, the reason why they keep hammering it home is because his vocal support among the fringes is unprecedented in the modern era. They've got plenty of things to attack him on - which they do.
- imron 10y ago
  A more cynical view is that they keep hammering it home because Trump's outreach to black voters is working enough that it has become electorally significant [0]. Polls show he currently has historically high support among black voters - and not just for himself, but out of any Republican candidate over the last few decades [1], and it's high enough that it could tip the election. 0: http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/ http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/ (scroll to 'by race/ethnicity'). 1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/11/how-black-voters-could-determine-the-2016-election/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/11/ho...
  - akhilcacharya 10y ago
    That's unlikely. The LATimes tracking poll is known to be unorthodox in its methodology, it's meant to track fluctuations in support more than actual support. Trump has not broken ~6% in any other swing state polls or national polls that I've seen, sometimes he's in 4th place behind Johnson and Stein. As it turns out, delegitimizing and spreading conspiracy theories about a wildly popular president in a community does not make people in a community fans of you. Most analysts don't think the outreach was targeted at black voters at all, but rather white moderates, who are more persuadable and numerous in number. 0: http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12587672/donald-trump-s-black-outreach-isn-t-for-black-voters-it-s-for-wavering-white-republicans http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12587672/donald-trump-s-black-o...
- jessaustin 10y ago
  ...the fringes... Who is this? How can I tell who of my neighbors is in this group? Having made that determination, how should I treat those neighbors?
saboot 10y ago
You haven't been paying attention. Yes, pepe was fine, and yes many people who post it do so with no ill intent. But you are ignoring that people who are proudly racist are openly admitting to using pepe specifically to broaden and popularize explicitly racist ideas. That deserves to have light shown on it.
- adamrezich 10y ago
  Does it? What does it prove? Why does shining the spotlight on self-proclaimed Internet racists actually accomplish? Especially seeing as how much of the racism seems to mostly be in service of attention-seeking? What do you get out of proving that self-proclaimed racists [do x], as a small subset of people who [do x]?
  - saboot 10y ago
    Not self proclaimed internet racists, we're talking about white nationalists and race segregationists like Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor discussing Pepe as a way to "speak truth to power".
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    It helps motivate others to help keep their standard-bearer out of the most powerful office in the world.
- imron 10y ago
  > But you are ignoring that people who are proudly racist are openly admitting to using pepe specifically to broaden and popularize explicitly racist ideas You mean like the prominent white supremacists quoted in the article linked to by that expose? Who later turned out to be a couple of trolls making up stuff for shits and giggles to see what sort of ridiculous things they could make journalists write? (http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/14/heres-how-two-twitter-pranksters-convinced-the-world-that-pepe-the-frog-meme-is-just-a-front-for-white-nationalism/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/14/heres-how-two-twitter-pran...) Giving credibility to that just makes you look foolish. > using pepe specifically to broaden and popularize explicitly racist ideas I await Hillary Clinton's expose on Mickey Mouse https://www.google.com/search?q=mickey+mouse+nazi&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=mickey+mouse+nazi&tbm=isch

akhilcacharya 10y ago

It is if you're short-sighted enough to accept an anti-innovation candidate on a website about technology & entrepreneurship because you thought a explainer on a meme was inappropriate.