5 ms·
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
by 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 agoThis 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.
- saboot 10y ago1. Not a member of the clinton campaign 2. > 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. People promoting racism are doing this, you want to stay willfully ignorant about it.
- stonetear 10y agoYou tried. The mental gymnastics in that thread made my head spin.
- saboot 10y agoCare to explain?