4 ms·
But you see the issue with that thought process right? You can imbue political meaning on anything that way, and ban arbitrary things. What if there is a (perha
by norswap 6y ago
But you see the issue with that thought process right? You can imbue political meaning on anything that way, and ban arbitrary things. What if there is a (perhaps bogus) polemic, and your favorite singer is singled out as a racist/misogynist/communist/whatever, and the Bad People start blasting his songs at rallies? Are you supposed to stop listening to your favourite songs.
Come to your own conclusions, but mine is: fuck that - I'll be the judge of what is acceptable and what isn't, not some kind of thought mob.
- FireBeyond 6y agoYour conclusion here is that these people were all making this sign for non-nefarious meanings. On the contrary, it is contextually highly/entirely likely that they were _actively_ choosing to use it in a political manner. They _themselves_ were choosing to imbue political meaning on it, as much as anyone was choosing to _take_ meaning from it.
- Aerroon 6y ago>On the contrary, it is contextually highly/entirely likely that they were _actively_ choosing to use it in a political manner. Based on what? If you go looking for things with a specific interpretation in mind you're going to find a lot of it even in places that it wasn't meant that way. The adage about malice and incompetence comes to mind.
- FireBeyond 6y agoBased on the fact that a group of eight or so people with Confederate flags, tattoos and armed and wearing body armor went out of their way to pose, in front of a BLM protest, all making that sign. "wasn't meant that way" - you're going have to try harder than that. Saying "oh, they meant nothing inflammatory, even though they're the group (3%ers) who are most associated with the nefarious intent and are absolutely aware of it's purported meaning" is wilfully disingenuous.