> I'm not here to read your entire comment history I wouldn't ordinarily expect that of anyone, except that you had already replied. Perhaps we should define

> I'm not here to read your entire comment history I wouldn't ordinarily expect that of anyone, except that you had already replied. Perhaps we should define terms. When people use the term "white supremacist symbol" I hear something that is used by everyone including white supremacists to unambiguously signal white supremacy. A Nazi flag. A burning cross. Shaved head, bomber jacket, combat boots, and most importantly, white laces. The content of these particular symbols stem self-consciously from their progenitors: putative Aryan heritage in the case of the swastika, the purity of Protestant Christian values for the burning cross, etc A symbol that everyone uses - including white supremacists - to mean something else - "OK" - is not a white supremacist symbol by that definition. Its history as a purported white supremacist symbol, a joke on a trolling board, doesn't follow that of actual such symbols The movement to turn it into a white supremacist symbol is now driven largely by serious, earnest, white leftists, curiously enough. I point to the people who are constantly pointing it out as evidence as my evidence. Why is this, I wonder? It's curious. > his written manifesto was a) steeped in 4chan memes and winks to those in the know Assuming that's true, then it's even more evidence to me that OK is not a "white supremacist symbol" his own white supremacy notwithstanding. He, your best evidence that it is, this fellow who used it, is well versed in its origin as a joke.