6 ms·

What are you talking about? I'm pointing out that they are intentionally using pepe memes to make their ideas seem innocuous. And they get retweeted widely. It'

by saboot 10y ago

What are you talking about? I'm pointing out that they are intentionally using pepe memes to make their ideas seem innocuous. And they get retweeted widely. It's a fact, choose to do what you want with it. If you want to blow that up into a giant hyperbole that's on you. Making people aware of what is going on doesn't limit anyone's speech or actions.

imron 10y ago
> I'm pointing out that they are intentionally using pepe memes to make their ideas seem innocuous. And they get retweeted widely. It's a fact, choose to do what you want with it. The same would be true if they posted Mickey Mouse memes or anything else. To claim Pepe memes by default have any sort of racist undertones (as the Clinton campaign is doing) is false. > Making people aware of what is going on doesn't limit anyone's speech or actions Except with that article on Hillary's site, it's not being done to 'make people aware' it's done to brand Pepe as being racist so that when you see regular Trump supporters posting completely innocent Pepe memes (which they do with regularity) it creates the illusion that a large number of Trump supporters are racist (some are I'm sure but the same goes for any group that contains tens of millions of people). Taking a white-supremacist at his word that Pepe is part of their movement also give them power and notoriety that they wouldn't otherwise have. By 'making people aware' you are giving voice to people who otherwise wouldn't be heard. Don't believe me? Look at Google Trends for something like 'David Duke' https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=david%20duke https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=david%20duke Who do you think is responsible for creating that upsurge in interest? Who are the people quoting Duke in articles and writing pages and pages of content about him? Hint it isn't Trump, it's the people trying to tar Trump with a racist brush.
saboot 10y ago
I can't reply to you, but I suggest you try replying directly to my points instead of injecting your own political agenda.
- imron 10y ago
  You can reply, you just need to wait a few minutes - it’s an HN feature to prevent people replying in haste. I have no political agenda. I’m not from the US, I’m not in the US, I can’t vote in this election. I have no horse in this race. I’m an outsider looking in on the stupidity (on both sides). I am addressing your points - or at least thought I was. Your point as it appears to me (feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted you) was ‘we need to make people aware of how these white supremacists are promoting their ideals’. My point is ‘this has the opposite intent of what you expect and like the Streisand effect, it inadvertently helps promote such ideals and gives these people cultural ground that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to occupy. Giving any sort of import to their ravings, makes them more important than they deserve to be, and gives them a degree of control over your actions.'
  - saboot 10y ago
    > this has the opposite intent of what you expect and like the Streisand effect They are promoting it themselves, loudly, and trying to inject their ideas into mainstream political discourse. I see no problem in calling for people to reject it, and helping them identify them. You can look into american history and see that we have been through cycles like this before (example the 'Know Nothings' against the catholics). I have myself clearly seen more speech in favor of segregation ("we just weren't meant to mix together") on many sites (reddit, facebook comments on congressman pages, etc). I can give you links to explicitly racist sites where they talk about organizing on popular websites to change discourse. You argue I'm giving them the Streisand effect, but we are already too late. They are here, people need to be aware today. These people intentionally prey on those who are susceptible and angry. I have two (former) friends who have tried talking to me about how "cultural marxism is destroying western values" and that every muslim has evil in their hearts. They weren't always like this. They don't deserve to be important, instead of ignoring them people need to be willing to say that this is unacceptable and their ideas are not welcome.
    - imron 10y ago
      > They don't deserve to be important, instead of ignoring them people need to be willing to say that this is unacceptable and their ideas are not welcome. Which is a better way to show someone that they are not important: * Ignoring them * Giving their views countless press in order to discredit them I agree that calling out racism is important, but when it's just people spouting nonsense in their own little corner of the Internet why give that any attention. > They are promoting it themselves, loudly, and trying to inject their ideas into mainstream political discourse Something they have been trying to do since basically forever. However they can only successfully inject themselves when other people allow it. Have a look at this basic timeline: Internet: Pepe the frog is fun Racists: Pepe the frog now belongs to us Internet: Nah, Pepe's not racist. Clinton: Pepe the frog belongs to racists Internet: Nah, Pepe's not racist. Question: In this scenario, who gave racists control of Pepe the frog and who allowed racists to inject themselves in to this part of mainstream culture? (Hint: it was not the racists and it was not the Internet). > I can give you links to explicitly racist sites This is exactly what I was talking about. In your fervor to show how horrible these people are, you are willing to promote these sites yourself... I don't care for those sites any more than I care for sites promoting flat-earth science and/or UFOs. I know they exist, but I ignore them completely, which is exactly the attention they deserve.

by saboot 10y ago

imron 10y ago

> I'm pointing out that they are intentionally using pepe memes to make their ideas seem innocuous. And they get retweeted widely. It's a fact, choose to do what you want with it. The same would be true if they posted Mickey Mouse memes or anything else. To claim Pepe memes by default have any sort of racist undertones (as the Clinton campaign is doing) is false. > Making people aware of what is going on doesn't limit anyone's speech or actions Except with that article on Hillary's site, it's not being done to 'make people aware' it's done to brand Pepe as being racist so that when you see regular Trump supporters posting completely innocent Pepe memes (which they do with regularity) it creates the illusion that a large number of Trump supporters are racist (some are I'm sure but the same goes for any group that contains tens of millions of people). Taking a white-supremacist at his word that Pepe is part of their movement also give them power and notoriety that they wouldn't otherwise have. By 'making people aware' you are giving voice to people who otherwise wouldn't be heard. Don't believe me? Look at Google Trends for something like 'David Duke' https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=david%20duke https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=david%20duke Who do you think is responsible for creating that upsurge in interest? Who are the people quoting Duke in articles and writing pages and pages of content about him? Hint it isn't Trump, it's the people trying to tar Trump with a racist brush.

saboot 10y ago

I can't reply to you, but I suggest you try replying directly to my points instead of injecting your own political agenda.

imron 10y ago
You can reply, you just need to wait a few minutes - it’s an HN feature to prevent people replying in haste. I have no political agenda. I’m not from the US, I’m not in the US, I can’t vote in this election. I have no horse in this race. I’m an outsider looking in on the stupidity (on both sides). I am addressing your points - or at least thought I was. Your point as it appears to me (feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted you) was ‘we need to make people aware of how these white supremacists are promoting their ideals’. My point is ‘this has the opposite intent of what you expect and like the Streisand effect, it inadvertently helps promote such ideals and gives these people cultural ground that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to occupy. Giving any sort of import to their ravings, makes them more important than they deserve to be, and gives them a degree of control over your actions.'
- saboot 10y ago
  > this has the opposite intent of what you expect and like the Streisand effect They are promoting it themselves, loudly, and trying to inject their ideas into mainstream political discourse. I see no problem in calling for people to reject it, and helping them identify them. You can look into american history and see that we have been through cycles like this before (example the 'Know Nothings' against the catholics). I have myself clearly seen more speech in favor of segregation ("we just weren't meant to mix together") on many sites (reddit, facebook comments on congressman pages, etc). I can give you links to explicitly racist sites where they talk about organizing on popular websites to change discourse. You argue I'm giving them the Streisand effect, but we are already too late. They are here, people need to be aware today. These people intentionally prey on those who are susceptible and angry. I have two (former) friends who have tried talking to me about how "cultural marxism is destroying western values" and that every muslim has evil in their hearts. They weren't always like this. They don't deserve to be important, instead of ignoring them people need to be willing to say that this is unacceptable and their ideas are not welcome.
  - imron 10y ago
    > They don't deserve to be important, instead of ignoring them people need to be willing to say that this is unacceptable and their ideas are not welcome. Which is a better way to show someone that they are not important: * Ignoring them * Giving their views countless press in order to discredit them I agree that calling out racism is important, but when it's just people spouting nonsense in their own little corner of the Internet why give that any attention. > They are promoting it themselves, loudly, and trying to inject their ideas into mainstream political discourse Something they have been trying to do since basically forever. However they can only successfully inject themselves when other people allow it. Have a look at this basic timeline: Internet: Pepe the frog is fun Racists: Pepe the frog now belongs to us Internet: Nah, Pepe's not racist. Clinton: Pepe the frog belongs to racists Internet: Nah, Pepe's not racist. Question: In this scenario, who gave racists control of Pepe the frog and who allowed racists to inject themselves in to this part of mainstream culture? (Hint: it was not the racists and it was not the Internet). > I can give you links to explicitly racist sites This is exactly what I was talking about. In your fervor to show how horrible these people are, you are willing to promote these sites yourself... I don't care for those sites any more than I care for sites promoting flat-earth science and/or UFOs. I know they exist, but I ignore them completely, which is exactly the attention they deserve.