3 ms·

You are defending the Motte here, while someone on this thread is being called a white supremacist for defending the phrase "It's okay to be white". Your exampl

by ulucs 6y ago

You are defending the Motte here, while someone on this thread is being called a white supremacist for defending the phrase "It's okay to be white". Your example is bad anyway, because 1488 does not have any clear alternative meaning. Take the "okay" sign for instance. It has nowhere near 100% specificity and is basically useless for declaring their alignment. It's a common hand gesture for god's sake. Yet the whole thing was made to be a huge deal as it "revealed" many prominent people were actually secretly white supremacists. And I think the actual motive lies here: making the opposition make an ass out of themselves and causing the maximum possible collateral damage, without actually doing anything. The stronger you react to innocuous things, the more reasonable the other side looks. I mean, who would want to be labeled a X supremacist just because they think it's okay to be X? By stooping down to /pol/'s level just to fight against them, you lose the reasonable people from your side.

monocasa 6y ago
> while someone on this thread is being called a white supremacist for defending the phrase "It's okay to be white". They're throwing around terms like "white genocide", and saying that they wouldn't judge people who wear 1488 (just so we're clear, the 88 part means heil hitler). They're either a white supremacist, or a troll just pretending to be one. You're not making a good case for the lack of specificity. Going to your OK sign, obviously ok signs are fine in the general sense, but if someone is on a rant about how immigrants are ruining the country, then throws up an ok sign, it's explicitly a white supremacist calling card. It's all about context.
- ulucs 6y ago
  I agree that 1488 is a signal, but don't agree that it is invisible. The implied meaning is just a google search away. >if someone is on a rant about how immigrants are ruining the country I'd say this is the actual reason you think they are a white supremacist, rather than deciphering their dog whistle. Going on a rant on immigrants specifically is a much clearer indicator of their political alignment (my guess would be r/theDonald poster) and I wouldn't say the okay sign adds more signal. The real danger of dog whistles is when we start seeing things that aren't there, or when we let white supremacists or edgy shitposters dictate what our behavior means.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    So you agree that the person you had previously said is just innocuously defending "it's ok to be white" is actually a white supremacist or a troll pretending to be one? You keep pretending like there's these innocent victims, and it turns out these people where actually what we had said they were all along.
    - ulucs 6y ago
      I am getting confused now. My ESL'ness might be getting in the way of us communicating. Based on how the okay sign thing went, with all of its false positives (which are the innocent victims), I don't think the "dog whistles" give a clear enough signal. Your examples also use judgement from context rather than the dog whistles which is in line with what I've said. The other poster turned out to be a clear troll, and arguing with them on what the dog whistles mean is giving them just what they want.
      - monocasa 6y ago
        > Based on how the okay sign thing went, with all of its false positives (which are the innocent victims), I don't think the "dog whistles" give a clear enough signal. Your examples also use judgement from context rather than the dog whistles which is in line with what I've said. Can you give an example of one of these false positive victims?
        stale2002 6y ago
        > Can you give an example of one of these false positive victims? Sure, I can. There was a viral example when Zina Bash, a white house advisor, was sitting in a senate hearing, with her hand on her arms, in a way where her fingers kind of looked like the OK sign, but not really. As in, she did not "flash" the OK sign. Instead she had her hand resting on her arm in a certain position. And this went viral and everyone accused her of being a white supremicist because of it, even though the situation was clearly ridiculous. You can look it up, if you want more details.

by ulucs 6y ago

monocasa 6y ago

> while someone on this thread is being called a white supremacist for defending the phrase "It's okay to be white". They're throwing around terms like "white genocide", and saying that they wouldn't judge people who wear 1488 (just so we're clear, the 88 part means heil hitler). They're either a white supremacist, or a troll just pretending to be one. You're not making a good case for the lack of specificity. Going to your OK sign, obviously ok signs are fine in the general sense, but if someone is on a rant about how immigrants are ruining the country, then throws up an ok sign, it's explicitly a white supremacist calling card. It's all about context.

ulucs 6y ago
I agree that 1488 is a signal, but don't agree that it is invisible. The implied meaning is just a google search away. >if someone is on a rant about how immigrants are ruining the country I'd say this is the actual reason you think they are a white supremacist, rather than deciphering their dog whistle. Going on a rant on immigrants specifically is a much clearer indicator of their political alignment (my guess would be r/theDonald poster) and I wouldn't say the okay sign adds more signal. The real danger of dog whistles is when we start seeing things that aren't there, or when we let white supremacists or edgy shitposters dictate what our behavior means.
- monocasa 6y ago
  So you agree that the person you had previously said is just innocuously defending "it's ok to be white" is actually a white supremacist or a troll pretending to be one? You keep pretending like there's these innocent victims, and it turns out these people where actually what we had said they were all along.
  - ulucs 6y ago
    I am getting confused now. My ESL'ness might be getting in the way of us communicating. Based on how the okay sign thing went, with all of its false positives (which are the innocent victims), I don't think the "dog whistles" give a clear enough signal. Your examples also use judgement from context rather than the dog whistles which is in line with what I've said. The other poster turned out to be a clear troll, and arguing with them on what the dog whistles mean is giving them just what they want.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      > Based on how the okay sign thing went, with all of its false positives (which are the innocent victims), I don't think the "dog whistles" give a clear enough signal. Your examples also use judgement from context rather than the dog whistles which is in line with what I've said. Can you give an example of one of these false positive victims?
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > Can you give an example of one of these false positive victims? Sure, I can. There was a viral example when Zina Bash, a white house advisor, was sitting in a senate hearing, with her hand on her arms, in a way where her fingers kind of looked like the OK sign, but not really. As in, she did not "flash" the OK sign. Instead she had her hand resting on her arm in a certain position. And this went viral and everyone accused her of being a white supremicist because of it, even though the situation was clearly ridiculous. You can look it up, if you want more details.