4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- saboot 10y ago
  You are wrongly characterizing what I am saying. Maybe try reading my original post again? People can only "allow" them to inject themselves into discourse when they have full consent, ie what their agenda is. Ignoring them doesn't silence them, nor makes it clear that their ideas are not acceptable. Did I give you any links? I indicated that they are there and it is explicit and obvious. If you cannot handle that a meme is ALSO (which means NOT ENTIRELY ie they dont own it) by people with a racist agenda then I frankly don't know what to say. The above people asked for proof, I gave it to them. Deal with the facts. I'm not going to stop pointing out the tactics of white supremacists to inject themselves in mainstream culture.
  - imron 10y ago
    > Maybe try reading my original post again? Ok, sure > But you are ignoring that people who are proudly racist are openly admitting to using pepe specifically to broaden and popularize explicitly racist ideas Yes. I am ignoring such people, because such tactics don't merit anything more. I would also ignore them if they claimed to be using Mickey Mouse or any other broadly popular icon to promote their ideas. Because it deserves nothing more than a rolling of my eyes. What I will call out is people (like the Clinton campaign) accepting or validating the idea that Pepe is somehow a racist, nazi frog. > If you cannot handle that a meme is ALSO (which means NOT ENTIRELY ie they dont own it) by people with a racist agenda then I frankly don't know what to say I can handle it fine. It's the Clinton campaign (and surrogates) that are trying to actively associate Pepe as a symbol of racism and that's what I object to. I think this conversation has reached the point where it is only going to go round in circles, so I'm bowing out now. Please enjoy the rest of your day.
    - Inconel 10y ago
      This is exactly my problem with the Clinton campaign article about Pepe being a white nationalist symbol. I found that article troubling because first, it reads like satire and I am legitimately frightened that this is what a major presidential candidate views as political discourse in this country, and second because it so unequivocally casts Pepe as racist symbolism, which is completely false. There is no nuance whatsoever in that article, which increasingly seems like standard procedure in politics on both sides of the aisle. Nuance and deep understanding seem to have completely disappeared from politics, everything is black or white, good or evil. I'm writing this on my computer and I have an entire folder on my desktop filled with rare Pepes that I've collected over the years. I'm not a white nationalist and up until last week I had a Pepe sticker on my backpack that I carry with me everywhere. When I saw this article gaining mainstream attention I immediately took the sticker off. I have enough things to deal with in life to not want to worry about being called a racist because of my Pepe sticker. Now, I understand there are much greater injustices in the country to deal with than this, but this is yet another example of politicians using these kind of binary arguments that end up making serious discourse impossible.

by saboot 10y ago

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.

saboot 10y ago
You are wrongly characterizing what I am saying. Maybe try reading my original post again? People can only "allow" them to inject themselves into discourse when they have full consent, ie what their agenda is. Ignoring them doesn't silence them, nor makes it clear that their ideas are not acceptable. Did I give you any links? I indicated that they are there and it is explicit and obvious. If you cannot handle that a meme is ALSO (which means NOT ENTIRELY ie they dont own it) by people with a racist agenda then I frankly don't know what to say. The above people asked for proof, I gave it to them. Deal with the facts. I'm not going to stop pointing out the tactics of white supremacists to inject themselves in mainstream culture.
- imron 10y ago
  > Maybe try reading my original post again? Ok, sure > But you are ignoring that people who are proudly racist are openly admitting to using pepe specifically to broaden and popularize explicitly racist ideas Yes. I am ignoring such people, because such tactics don't merit anything more. I would also ignore them if they claimed to be using Mickey Mouse or any other broadly popular icon to promote their ideas. Because it deserves nothing more than a rolling of my eyes. What I will call out is people (like the Clinton campaign) accepting or validating the idea that Pepe is somehow a racist, nazi frog. > If you cannot handle that a meme is ALSO (which means NOT ENTIRELY ie they dont own it) by people with a racist agenda then I frankly don't know what to say I can handle it fine. It's the Clinton campaign (and surrogates) that are trying to actively associate Pepe as a symbol of racism and that's what I object to. I think this conversation has reached the point where it is only going to go round in circles, so I'm bowing out now. Please enjoy the rest of your day.
  - Inconel 10y ago
    This is exactly my problem with the Clinton campaign article about Pepe being a white nationalist symbol. I found that article troubling because first, it reads like satire and I am legitimately frightened that this is what a major presidential candidate views as political discourse in this country, and second because it so unequivocally casts Pepe as racist symbolism, which is completely false. There is no nuance whatsoever in that article, which increasingly seems like standard procedure in politics on both sides of the aisle. Nuance and deep understanding seem to have completely disappeared from politics, everything is black or white, good or evil. I'm writing this on my computer and I have an entire folder on my desktop filled with rare Pepes that I've collected over the years. I'm not a white nationalist and up until last week I had a Pepe sticker on my backpack that I carry with me everywhere. When I saw this article gaining mainstream attention I immediately took the sticker off. I have enough things to deal with in life to not want to worry about being called a racist because of my Pepe sticker. Now, I understand there are much greater injustices in the country to deal with than this, but this is yet another example of politicians using these kind of binary arguments that end up making serious discourse impossible.