10 ms·

The "ok" hand sign isn't a white power sign just because some people have decided it to be. It's meant ok since as long as anyone can remember. I'm not willing

• spacemanmatt 6y ago
  The white supremacy sign is a white power sign because white supremacists use it to signal each other. It is called a "dog whistle" because people like you cannot hear it accurately.
  • kazinator 6y ago
    Whoa there, Roofus; have a Milk-Bone of information: "In 2017, users on the message-board site 4chan[40][41][42] aimed to convince the media and other people that the OK gesture was being used as a white power symbol. According to The Boston Globe, users on 4chan's /pol/ ("Politically Incorrect") board were instructed in February 2017 to "flood Twitter and other social media websites...claiming that the OK hand sign is a symbol of white supremacy," as part of a campaign dubbed "Operation O-KKK".[37] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_gesture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_gesture O-KKK? ... mmmmkay, whatever. You've been taken for a ride ... a wild-eyed ride with your head sticking out of a rolled-down passenger window.
    • slg 6y ago
      These are such weird arguments. The origins are irrelevant because it wasn't just a trick pulled on normies; white supremacists also fell for the joke. Once they started genuinely using the gesture it did become a symbol of hate. The Wikipedia article you linked says exactly that a few paragraphs below the paragraph you quoted.
      • rendall 6y ago
        > white supremacists also fell for the joke. Once they started genuinely using the gesture it did become a symbol of hate. [citation needed]
        • WickyNilliams 6y ago
          https://nypost.com/2019/03/15/suspected-new-zealand-shooter-appears-in-court/ https://nypost.com/2019/03/15/suspected-new-zealand-shooter-... The Christchurch shooter, whilst likely in on the "joke", made the gesture in court. At that point, the difference between it being a joke made by a white supremacist, or a symbol of white supremacism evaporates. It is a symbol used by a white supremacist, therefore it is a white supremacist symbol. Context matters of course, but I don't feel you can truly deny it has taken on meaning outside of the original joke
          • rendall 6y ago
            Context matters of course, but I don't feel you can truly deny it has taken on meaning outside of the original joke Oh I do deny. Nearly every example ever shown is indistinguishable from accident or people using it for other purposes. Mexican workers "flashes" it while driving around: fired. West Point cadets goofing off, punching each other: sanctioned. Random individuals in photos: obviously white supremacist. to inflate this non-issue, and then use the very fact of its inflation as justification for its further inflation is reprehensible, and then get actual innocent people labeled as racist. Truly despicable
            • WickyNilliams 6y ago
              You asked for an example, so I gave a particularly egregious example of exactly what you asked for. You suddenly switch your position to "nearly every example" and do not address the very specific and relevant example I gave at all. /shrug
              • rendall 6y ago
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • user-the-name 6y ago
      Yes, that is how a dog whistle works. Why are you taking the words of 4chan trolls at face value?
      • Out_of_Characte 6y ago
        I have to give 4chan credits where it's due, the weakness of the human mind is fully exploited like what happens when nations use massive propaganda machines. A complete non-issue of people "accidently" making a hand gesture has turned into a full-blown conspiracy theory that validates itself by groups willfully coopting part of the ruse. Whats the use of knowing the hand gesture for white supremacy? we've always had gang signs and they were similarly irrelivant outside the groups that use them. Really makes one think what I believe to be true that just aint so.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    • smoe 6y ago
      From the same section you quoted: “According to the ADL, by 2019 some white supremacists had begun using the OK symbol "as a sincere expression of White Supremacy", and many white supremacists have acknowledged using the symbol as a gesture of White Power.”
  • apexalpha 6y ago
    You really think people now use "OK", a sign used for years, to signal they are racist? I think you're the butt of the joke here...
    • limaoscarjuliet 6y ago
      A SCUBA diver here. Apparently we are all racist while submerged.
      • pygy_ 6y ago
        When you read "inflammable", you can often, from the context, determine whether it means flammable or not. Sometimes you can't. The same applies to the OK sign. Flashing it surrounded by notorious racists after the 4chan hoax leaves no doubt about the intended meaning. Also, given that's it's now been coopted by nazis, you may want to be careful when flashing it if you want to avoid embarrassing ambiguities, yes. It was probably a fad in these circles, not sure it is still used, but still.
        • hairofadog 6y ago
          I’m not disagreeing with your larger point, but FYI “inflammable” always means “easily catches fire” and never anything else.
          • lotsofpulp 6y ago
            I never thought I’d see the Simpsons Dr Nick joke in real life.
          • pygy_ 6y ago
            Not a native speaker, and I thought it was one of these words that are their own antonym... Must have crossed wires :-)
        • prepend 6y ago
          > Flashing it surrounded by notorious racists after the 4chan hoax leaves no doubt about the intended meaning. Trolling is a meaning. I think in that situation it’s even more ambiguous since the “troll power” is so much greater then. I think it’s unambiguous that the user is a shit-stirrer certainly, probably an asshole. But not necessarily racist. Or no more so than your average run of the mill “everyone is racist subconsciously” racist. I think what’s hard is that it’s a negative thing to do that brings more chaos and harm into the world. It could be racist/white power that is super bad, let’s say 100 on the bad-o-meter. Or it could be trolling the pearl clutchers that is mildly bad, let’s say 11 on the bad-o-meter. And for scale, punching someone in the face is 200 and murdering someone is 1000.
  • Udik 6y ago
    My issue with the term "dog whistle" is that it's being abused to attribute nefarious meaning to just anything you want irrespectively of the actual content of the message- by definition the "dog whistle" is something that the message doesn't obviously contain. It's a free interpretation license card. I think out-of-context interpretation is the major issue of our times: we got used to the idea that it's perfectly fine to report the most damning combination of words in a sentence as if it were the original full sentence; that a joke made on twitter is the same as a political manifesto sent to the press; and that a hand gesture can get the meaning it would have in its worst possible case. This has to stop.
    • pygy_ 6y ago
      Getting photographed smiling next to two notorious white supremacists is already fishy. The picture was taken after the sign became a notorious rallying sign for racists. Do you really think that Luckey is aloof to the point of not not knowing what he's doing there? If you borrowed Occam's razor, you may need to sharpen it a bit before using it.
      • Udik 6y ago
        The "ok sign is a white power symbol" thing started as trolling on 4chan. It doesn't mean anything apart from being useful to infuriate other people. You're being trolled.
        • pygy_ 6y ago
          Notwithstanding its origins, it was subsequently adopted by racists as a rallying sign. Context matters.
          • refurb 6y ago
            Not going to lie but it’s apparent you will see racism wherever you want to despite the evidence.
            • 6y ago
  • coldtea 6y ago
    "Dog whistle" is a term bat-shit-crazy people and opportunists use to mark whoever they like on anything they can drum up. "You think what he said was inoffensive? That's because it's a dog whistle!". It's not that some dog whistles don't exist (e.g. upon secret societies, etc). It's that it's used as a weapon with the flimsiest of excuses. It's the 2020 version of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.
    • rendall 6y ago
      To believe that dog-whistles exist as an actual thing used effectively, one would also have to believe: a) A group of people (e.g. white supremacists) do not already know that the dog-whistler (e.g. a politician) is a member or sympathizer of their group b) That this person who sympathizes with this secret group wants to signal sympathy with this secret group, but cannot do it directly (that is, by email or letter or direct contact), and so must somehow signal through public words and deeds c) This signal will somehow, hopefully, be invisible to everyone who is listening except for members of the secret group The prototypical example is politicians talking about "thugs" and "welfare queens" as dog-whistling a racist contempt for black people. I can definitely accept that using such language could be such a signal, especially with the context of aligned policy pronouncements, but it's pretty blatant and not a dog-whistle.
      • spacemanmatt 6y ago
        I disagree on a), b), or c) being requirements of dog-whistles. That just feels superficially wrong.
    • tomp 6y ago
      Exactly. The only reasonable use of the word “dog-whistle” is ”’dog-whistle’ is a dog-whistle used to signal support of political correctness and belonging to the left-wing elite and/or an unwillingness to engage in rational argument”.
  • refurb 6y ago
    The reason you believe so strongly it’s a white supremacy symbol is because it fits, no reinforces, your political views.
  • gus_massa 6y ago
    We can't let trolls and white supremacist steal the ok symbol. We must fight back. The problem is that whoever makes the the first step will get called a white supremacist, so nobody want to volunteer.
    • rendall 6y ago
      No, I'll volunteer. It's a stupid conspiracy theory, and I have nothing but contempt for it. I use it all the time, and always will, regardless of context or the presence of gullible idiots around me.
      • Larrikin 6y ago
        Why do you insist and insult the people who are agaisnt the racist people who call out the symbol. If the symbol is so important to you then your fight should be with the actual white supremacists who have co-opted the symbol and not the people who don't let racists get away with recruitment/trolling/owning the libs by flashing their co-opted gang sign. It's like you being furious at black people because your great grandparents used to always win their Halloween contest with their pointy hat ghost costume and you're not going to let stupid guillable people keep you from wearing it at parties.
        • rendall 6y ago
          > Why do you insist and insult the people who are agaisnt the racist people who call out the symbol. Because they aren't against racist people. They are pro-idiocy. They're only pro a good thing (being non-racist) by an accident of history and circumstance, certainly not because of sober reflection and empathy. These are the same idiots who would be all in on bullying the Satanic Panic preschool teachers in the 80s, or burning witches ye olden days, or hunting Communists in the 50s
          • Larrikin 6y ago
            I think it's a little telling that you're calling out historically conservative movements and trying to conflate them with a very progressive movement of not letting white supremacists use their favorite recruitment tool of "it's just a joke bro... unless you actually believe it"
  • flippinburgers 6y ago
    Supposed dog whistles and the extreme desire to immediately label people based on innocuous gestures/words is the new norm within certain parts of the puritanical left. I never thought I would see the day. It is shocking that what was once the bastion of liberal thought and open-mindedness has become this hyper-judgemental, crucify-all-that-don't-bow-to-our-will movement. Gems of the left: Do you want to be on the wrong side of history? Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences! Acknowledge your privilege! And other deeply manipulative threats/concepts.
    • Loughla 6y ago
      Okay, I'll bite. >Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences! How is that false? You can say what you want, outside of threats and the like, but you also get to live with the outcome of saying whatever it is. I don't see how that's puritanical. It's a statement of fact. I can tell my boss to go f** himself. I can also get fired for doing that.
      • prepend 6y ago
        I had to read the Scarlet Letter in high school. Hester Prynn had to live with the outcome of saying whatever it was. It was literally puritanical to make her wear a red “A.” as the outcome of her speech (v-a-v extramarital sex). I think the point isn’t that speech should have no impact, but that the response to speech should be proportional and what proportional means. The Puritans in Hawthorne’s novel thought that making someone a pariah was a proportional response. They were wrong, I think. But the lesson, I think, is not that we should be more precise in meting out moral judgement, but that we should judge less.
      • flippinburgers 6y ago
        It is a trite stick hung above arguments that people want to silence before they even happen which makes it intellectually uninteresting and shallow. And more than anything it is used to further attempt to shame people. There is no compassion in the phrase.
      • unishark 6y ago
• yread 6y ago
  Or you can use context instead of absolute judgment. When done under water in a scuba suit, it probably means ok. When done when posing with Steve Bannon it probably means white power sign.
  • lldbg 6y ago
    That's some hilariously vacuous reasoning. What's your thought process there? People are complex, just because you don't like them doesnt give you the right to judge their every action in the worst possible light. That's intellectually unsound.
  • matwood 6y ago
    Yeah, context is key. We played a game as kids where if you looked at one of us with the ok sign, the one doing the sign got to punch you in the arm. It was joke. Even though this new origin is a bit of the tail wagging the dog (it started as a joke on 4chan), the ok sign has taken on the meaning of a white power sign in certain situations. Unfortunately, people have trawled old pics and attacked people for using normal hand gestures. Context and nuance appears to be completely lost on many.
    • rendall 6y ago
      > the ok sign has taken on the meaning of a white power sign in certain situations. >> When done when posing with Steve Bannon it probably means white power sign. When a no-kidding, self-admitted, non-LARPing, Stormfront-reading, Klan- or Nazi-party member says "Yeah we've been using the OK symbol for years" then I'll believe it. But all I've ever seen about this is leftists of a certain type asserting that it's true, with some variation of "I know it's true because all my friends and thought leaders say it's true, and you can see yourself that such people as Steve Bannon use it, and people have even been fired for doing it. Definitely true. Your move, white-supremacy-denier!" So, no. It's a conspiracy theory, in which denial of the conspiracy is yet more evidence of the conspiracy.
      • WickyNilliams 6y ago
        How about the Christchurch shooter flashing it in court? He may have been doing it ironically still, but at that point does it even matter? He was explicitly associating himself and his actions with the symbol. Context matters of course, but what started as a joke has taken on its own life
• tsimionescu 6y ago
  The ok hand sign can be a perfectly innocuous hand sign in some circumstances, or a white supremacist dog whistle in others. The very purpose why it was adopted by white supremacists is this confusion - this has been explicitly researched by human rights groups. Of course, the symbol itself carries no white supremacist overtones, just like the swastika in itself does not carry any nazi symbolism (as opposed to, say, a crosssed out star of David, which would be an explicitly anti-semite symbol). However, it's association with and repeated use by Nazi Germany is what gave it a nazi symbolism. Even for such a widely reviled symbol, there are still non-taboo uses. In particular, a left-facing swastika (sauwastika) is a common Buddhist symbol, found often in Asian media with no Nazi connotation. That means that a bald person waving a swastika flag could either be a nazi skin head, or a buddhist monk - context will usually tell you which. This is similar to "states rights" rhetoric - it has both its literal sense, the discussion of the amount of power states should have vs the federal government; but it also refers more specifically to the "right" to slavery the civil war was fought over. When you hear someone speak about it, you need more context to know which sense is being used. Human language is complicated like this.
  • bobsil1 6y ago
    A right-facing svastika is a common Hindu blessing on wedding invites, Diwali prayers, etc.
• cauthon 6y ago
  Some of the comments below are rather heated. I’d like to quote an excerpt from the Anti-Defamation League’s page on the “ok” sign. [1] I think it is a reasonable take that acknowledges the validity of the perspectives posted here. Context is important. > Use of the okay symbol in most contexts is entirely innocuous and harmless. > In 2017, the “okay” hand gesture acquired a new and different significance thanks to a hoax by members of the website 4chan to falsely promote the gesture as a hate symbol, claiming that the gesture represented the letters “wp,” for “white power.” The “okay” gesture hoax was merely the latest in a series of similar 4chan hoaxes using various innocuous symbols; in each case, the hoaxers hoped that the media and liberals would overreact by condemning a common image as white supremacist. > In the case of the “okay” gesture, the hoax was so successful the symbol became a popular trolling tactic on the part of right-leaning individuals, who would often post photos to social media of themselves posing while making the “okay” gesture. > Ironically, some white supremacists themselves soon also participated in such trolling tactics, lending an actual credence to those who labeled the trolling gesture as racist in nature. By 2019, at least some white supremacists seem to have abandoned the ironic or satiric intent behind the original trolling campaign and used the symbol as a sincere expression of white supremacy, such as when Australian white supremacist Brenton Tarrant flashed the symbol during a March 2019 courtroom appearance soon after his arrest for allegedly murdering 50 people in a shooting spree at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. > The overwhelming usage of the “okay” hand gesture today is still its traditional purpose as a gesture signifying assent or approval. As a result, someone who uses the symbol cannot be assumed to be using the symbol in either a trolling or, especially, white supremacist context unless other contextual evidence exists to support the contention. Since 2017, many people have been falsely accused of being racist or white supremacist for using the “okay” gesture in its traditional and innocuous sense. [1] https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/okay-hand-gesture?fbclid=IwAR1uXtEofH889sVM_XTaY3wPhU0yb_vXGJRgHTZNHDLpeh1-Cdpg8bec94E https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/okay-h...
  • Ericson2314 6y ago
    Thank you for injecting some sanity in this sub thread.
• threatofrain 6y ago
  And if you make the okay sign while posing next to celebrity Steve Bannon, it's up to you how you control your messaging, and it's up to the audience to make a judgment call on receiving your message. On a more lighthearted issue, Ray Bradbury once abruptly left a guest lecture because students wouldn't agree on themes for his novel. Does a man own his own words? And does a man's meaning belong to him as well? Or is it like sand through one's fingers?
• refurb 6y ago
  The fact you’re trying to explain it away makes you sound like a Nazi. /s
• snakeboy 6y ago
  In reality, these days -- along with most other so-called dog whistles it's quite effective in trolling reactionaries on the left. That's all. Everyone is in on the joke. If I'm Don Jr. or Charlie Kirk or whoever, my prerogative is to invoke liberal "tears" so yeah I'm gonna use all the dog whistle words like "thugs" and flash the OK symbol, because it scores them points with the right, multiplied by the amount of outrage it causes from the left. Of course this dynamic only really exists in political contexts. Elsewhere it just means "OK" as always. However, it would be equally absurd to assume that politicians haven't caught on to public perception of this kind of stuff and are exploiting it for their advantage (via democrats clutching their pearls and republicans trying to induce said pearl-clutching)
  • midasz 6y ago
    Sounds like a really healthy mindset.
    • snakeboy 6y ago
      It sounds like cynical politicians doing what they always do: pitting their followers against "the enemy" for personal gain.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• muldvarp 6y ago
  You could use the exact same argument for the swastika. The swastika became the symbol of nazism because the nazis decided it to be. It was a religious symbol for thousands of years at that point. The key is to use context. A swastika on a temple that's older than nazism? Yeah, not a nazi symbol. A swastika on a flag at a right-wing protest in America in 2020? Probably not a religious symbol.
  • levosmetalo 6y ago
    > The key is to use context. A swastika on a temple that's older than nazism? Yeah, not a nazi symbol. A swastika on a flag at a right-wing protest in America in 2020? Probably not a religious symbol. What about an Indian student with a swastika tatoo passing by a right-wing protest? Is it a religious or political symbol then?
    • muldvarp 6y ago
      It is of course possible to construct fictitious contexts in which it is hard to tell what symbols mean. That doesn't mean that those symbols don't have meaning.