Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Communications Network Republicans Politics News Technology

Anti-Defamation League and Pepe the Frog's Creator Are Teaming Up To Save Pepe From Hate-Symbol Status (businessinsider.com) 380

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Business Insider: Matt Furie, the creator of the widely known "Pepe the Frog" meme, is joining forces with the Anti-Defamation League to reclaim the symbol from the alt-right and make it a "force for good," according to a press release. Furie and the ADL plan to start a social-media campaign by creating "a series of positive Pepe memes and messages" and promoting them with the hashtag #SavePepe, according to the release. The ADL declared "Pepe the Frog" to be a hate symbol in late September. "It's completely insane that Pepe has been labeled a symbol of hate, and that racists and anti-Semites are using a once peaceful frog-dude from my comic book as an icon of hate," Furie said in a column for Time magazine. While fiercely condemning the "racist and fringe groups" that use Pepe to propagate divisive views, Furie said Pepe was meant to "celebrate peace, togetherness, and fun." The meme, which originated from a 2005 cartoon, has been hijacked by the alt-right movement in the past several months. Members of the movement have used the meme to convey often racist and anti-Semitic messages. The messages prompted the ADL to add Pepe to its "Hate on Display" database, which documents anti-Semitic hate symbols. According to the ADL's press release on the #SavePepe campaign, Furie will speak at its "Never Is Now" summit against anti-Semitism on November 17 in New York City. The panel will focus specifically on online hate campaigns. Furie published a new Pepe cartoon on Monday detailing his "alt-right election nightmare," which depicts a sad Pepe morphing into a frog that resembles Donald Trump and then a monster. Pepe appears trapped in the mouth of the monster. The next panel depicts a nuclear explosion. Pepe then awakes and hides under his mattress.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti-Defamation League and Pepe the Frog's Creator Are Teaming Up To Save Pepe From Hate-Symbol Status

Comments Filter:
  • The Comic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17, 2016 @10:36PM (#53097177)

    Everyone who sees that comic is just going to laugh harder than they were before.

    It's fucking hilarious seeing these losers take a stupid meme so seriously.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17, 2016 @10:39PM (#53097195)

    If speech doesn't offend anyone, nobody will try to ban it. The only type of speech in need of protection is that which someone considers offensive and wants to ban. I consider hate speech a good thing because it's indicative of a free society. One of the first things to go in a society that isn't free is hate speech, a fact that has been documented throughout history. Regimes that aren't free tend to restrict speech, and we need to promote free thought and free speech. In a free society, you should speak against hate speech rather than attempt to ban it.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      In a truly free society, people could just murder, assault, rape, and steal with no consequences, except for vigilante justice. That's why we make these crimes illegal. It's a trade off of some freedom for some safety, and that's the right thing to do.

      Hate speech itself may not kill people, but it has harmful effects on society. It creates groups of people that are scared to speak up, scared to do things, and in some cases, people do kill or commit crimes based on it. Hate speech must be controlled as part

      • by poity ( 465672 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @01:38AM (#53097845)

        The loss of life, bodily integrity, and personal possession are reasons why your listed crimes are harmful. Their causes are the immediate physical actions that precipitate their loss. In contrast, speech precipitates no loss and no harm, and you only deem it "harmful" because they merely have the potential, down the line, to motivate or to lower the mental obstacles for actions that deprive life, bodily integrity, or personal possession. Your view of "harm" is suddenly made so expansive that it would force us to conclude that, for example, socialist slogans and ideas are forms of hate speech in the sense that they have the potential -- proven through historical precedent -- to motivate actions that deprive life, bodily integrity, and personal possession.

        Ultimately, your argument would like us to take extra steps up the chain of causality to ban things that aren't directly related to harm. How far up the chain of causality can we really go, or should we go? 2 or 3 steps seem just as arbitrary a demarcation as 20 or 40 steps. If a butterfly flaps its wings and down the line someone is killed, must we then ban the butterfly from flapping its wings?

        • by Kjella ( 173770 )

          In contrast, speech precipitates no loss and no harm

          If you're in front of a firing squad, I'm pretty sure the man giving the orders is part of it. Libel, slander, threats, many forms of speech are illegal. You can easily join a criminal conspiracy by speech alone. The kind of hate speech that is outlawed is generally intended to intimidate or incite, hidden by a thin veil of being non-specific in terms of perpetrators, victims and means. That is to say, the "good people of this town" (KKK) is going to make sure the "people who don't belong" (negros) are "not

          • by fnj ( 64210 )

            You are confused. Libel and slander are civil, not criminal, infractions. Hate speech has only been criminalized in certain jurisdictions in application to certain protected racial and other classes. You are perfectly free to express hate of specific individuals or of unprotected classes such as people with decorative body piercings, or people who dye their hair pink. Threats of bodily or other harm, and incitement to violence are a different thing than expressions of strong dislike.

            Attempting to ban or pro

        • by shilly ( 142940 )

          Look, sometimes the chain of causality is lengthy and inconclusive, and sometimes it's short and obvious unless you're being wilfully blind. Examples of the latter include shouting fire in a crowded theatre, shouting "kill him" to a friend who's aiming a gun at another person's head, etc. And in many legal jurisdictions, it includes shouting "death to the Jews" or what have you -- hate speech.

          And of course, this article isn't about a government seeking to restrain speech. It's about a cartoonist using a sym

    • Everything is wrong with hate symbols, and that's kind of the point. The very notions of freedom and tolerance presuppose the existence of things that are detestable.

  • Insanity (Score:2, Interesting)

    by s.petry ( 762400 )

    Yup, we are currently living with wide spread insanity. Facts no longer matter, and people who don't believe in your political opinion are spreading hate.

    Question though: Who is attempting to stifle speech? The people with the opposing opinion or those on the left? So are they making the frog a symbol of hate speech? I'm very confused.

  • Effect (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @10:56PM (#53097291) Journal

    Just rename it Streisand Frog

  • "It's completely insane that Pepe has been labeled a symbol of hate, and that racists and anti-Semites are using a once peaceful frog-dude from my comic book as an icon of hate"

    How much of that racism and anti-Semitism is actually real, and how much — "false flag" operations by DNC-operatives like these [cloudfront.net]?

    “You remember the Iowa state fair thing where Scott Walker grabbed the sign out of the dude’s hand and then the dude kind of gets roughed up right in front of the stage right there on camera?” Foval asks. “That was all us. The guy that got roughed up is my counterpart who works for Bob.”

    Foval also references Shirley Teeter, a sixty-nine-year-old lady who claims that she was assaulted at a Trump rally in North Carolina. “She was one of our activists,” he says while introducing the term bird dogging to the political lexicon.

    In addition to these thugs on the ground, Clinton's campaign also employs online trolls [latimes.com] (like Putin [nytimes.com]). If her political consultants aren't directing some of these guys to create fake "hate posts" — as their ethics clearly allow them to do — they aren't earning their pay...

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Even if all that is true (I can't be bothered to check), it was a waste of time. In the end nothing the DNC or Clinton did made much difference. Trump's own words and actions are what ruined his campaign. From the sexual assault to stalking her during the last debate to pretty much everything he has said during the campaign, he played a risky game and ultimately lost.

      My guess is that he saw Brexit and guys like Farrage, the man everyone loves to hate, the most punchable face in Britain, and thought it could

      • by mi ( 197448 )

        In the end nothing the DNC or Clinton did made much difference

        The point is, they tried. Which means, their ethics allow it. So they'll try again — Clinton ain't hurting for money and is not afraid to spend it.

        From the sexual assault

        Sexual assault [princeton.edu] is rape. Kissing, however unwanted, is not sexual assault. Besides, there is no evidence, he's ever actually done even that much — only talked.

        • I love the way you boldly posted a link which actually debunks your claim. Grabbing someone by the pussy would also qualify as sexual assault.

          • by mi ( 197448 )

            Grabbing someone by the pussy would also qualify as sexual assault.

            Maybe, but I was talking about kissing. But, whatever — neither of the two Presidential nominees have ever done it. There is not even a credible accusation, much less proof.

            Intimidating witnesses and victims of rape — yes, of that Hillary Clinton, the women's champion, was rather credibly accused decades ago, and not once [dailywire.com]. Maybe, Democrats should concentrate on making her more likable, instead of worrying about Pepe.

            • Maybe, but I was talking about kissing.

              Funny, I could have sworn you said (and I quote):

              "sexual assult is rape"

              Along with a link saying it is not in fact the case.

              • by mi ( 197448 )

                I could have sworn you said (and I quote): "sexual assault is rape"

                What I said right next to that was: "Kissing, even if unwanted, is not sexual assault". Funny, you chose to completely ignore that.

                Now, the "sexual assault is rape" bit was sarcasm. To turn a sexual assault into rape requires about as much (slightly less, actually) semantic-stretching as is needed to turn a kiss, however unwanted, into an assault. And battery — as a colleague of yours was doing yesterday [slashdot.org].

                Back to the basics — th

                • Funny, you chose to completely ignore that.

                  Why is it funny? What's that got to do with you saying "sexual assault is rape"?

                  Now, the "sexual assault is rape" bit was sarcasm.

                  Well that wasn't obvious from the context.

                  colleague of yours

                  [citation needed]

                  Intimidating witnesses and victims of rape

                  Dod you even read your own link? And that's the best spin on it that that a right wing mouthpiece can muster up? Not very damning.

          • But what if they let you grab them by the pussy? I hear there are lots of women who let musicians, TV & movie stars, etc, grab them by the pussies.

    • You're confused. "False flag" is not the word you're looking for, "agents provocateurs" is.

      It's funny that the most damning thing you can say about these political agitators is that they're very good at making Trump supporters drop their tendies and REEEE at the slightest provocation.

      • by mi ( 197448 )

        "False flag" is not the word you're looking for, "agents provocateurs" is.

        Read the link [cloudfront.net] carefully (and watch the video). Some of the things listed really were "false flag" operations. Such as:

        “So the Chicago protest when they shut all that, that was us,” says Black/Minter. “It was more him [Bob Creamer [wikipedia.org] - a convicted fraudster [usatoday.com], mi] than me, but none of this is supposed to come back to us, because we want it coming from people, we don’t want it to come from the party. So if we do a p

        • Oh, so you're mad that they misrepresented themselves, that they were more organized than they appeared? That counts as "false flagging"? You poor thing. Tricking dumb people is cheating. It's just not fair.

          Yet somehow that is different than James O'Keefe's conspiracy theorists pretending to be people they weren't.

          I think you're mad because of your video demonstrates: Democrats are master manipulators whose main weakness is they like to brag, and Trump supporters are violent rubes who can be provoked into a

      • If somebody goes to a political rally for black people dressed in a klan robe and yelling "N*GGER N*GGER N*GGER" and he gets punched, whose fault is it, and what does it say about everyone involved?

  • They are stopping? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Orgasmatron ( 8103 )

    So, the ADL and the press are going to stop lying about and slandering Pepe? That is good news.

    Oh, not that? They are going to try the anti-racist skinhead gambit? What do you mean you've never heard of anti-racist skinheads? Well, crap, I guess there may be a reason for that, and one that doesn't bode well for this nonsense.

    • I used to know an anti-racist skinhead, back in the 80's. He was an okay guy. There are lots of decent people in many subcultures.

    • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @01:45AM (#53097877) Homepage Journal

      Oh, not that? They are going to try the anti-racist skinhead gambit? What do you mean you've never heard of anti-racist skinheads? Well, crap, I guess there may be a reason for that, and one that doesn't bode well for this nonsense.

      They're called SHARPs, Skin Heads Against Racial Prejudice. If you haven't heard of them before, that's probably because you live in a severely insulated bubble. If you actually knew some skins or even some punks you'd have heard of SHARPs.

      • by dasunt ( 249686 )

        They're called SHARPs, Skin Heads Against Racial Prejudice. If you haven't heard of them before, that's probably because you live in a severely insulated bubble. If you actually knew some skins or even some punks you'd have heard of SHARPs.

        There's also the ARA (Anti-Racist Action Network). Not sure how active they are now, but they used to be pretty active around here.

      • by 0xdeadbeef ( 28836 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @10:21AM (#53100005) Homepage Journal

        They're called SHARPs, Skin Heads Against Racial Prejudice. If you haven't heard of them before, that's probably because you live in a severely insulated bubble. If you actually knew some skins or even some punks you'd have heard of SHARPs.

        lol, this is like chastising someone for not knowing the difference between a Playstation and a Nintendo

        "Mommmm! I'm not a neo-Nazi, I'm a SHARP! And it's not just a phase, it's who I am now!"

  • by Sibko ( 1036168 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @12:11AM (#53097617)

    Here's what one of the new strips looks like.
    http://i.imgur.com/3j1Y1pt.png [imgur.com]

    Here is what was immediately (within hours) done with it:
    http://i.imgur.com/DM8FCzc.png [imgur.com]
    http://i.imgur.com/sSYU61s.png [imgur.com]

  • by Noishkel ( 3464121 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @12:12AM (#53097623)

    The TL:DR version of this story was that someone trolled 'The Daily Beast' pretty hard by creating a lot of fake racist Pepe's under a pseudonym of 'Jared Taylor Swift'. To quote the article the Daily Beast ended up publishing was 'more or less a complete troll job,”

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/regression-to-the-meme-1473960707

  • by rebelwarlock ( 1319465 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @04:00AM (#53098207)
    I couldn't think of anything I gave less of a shit about when I heard that some group of retards was calling a cartoon frog that made funny faces racist, and then this bullshit came up. Can we just stop talking about them forever? They are not, have never, and will never have any meaningful impact on anything. Their ideas are stupid and pointless. Just forget they exist and they really will cease to exist.
  • by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @07:18AM (#53098779) Homepage

    Let me get this straight - they're going to try to tie Trump into this? The same Trump who is officially recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capitol?

    It's sad the lengths the looney left has to go to to pretend the Trump is a racist, antisemite, whatever.

  • Just wait three more weeks or so, and it'll be all over.

  • Its amazing having these clueless people that don't know anything about memes attempt to subvert them.

    Its like the fucking mainstream media trying to control hashtags or something.

    They don't get it. No one owns this crap. Anyone can use pepe or a hashtag. Its decentralized, leaderless, and chaotic.

  • I really, really, really envy some people for their problems.

    Out here in the real world, people have real problems.

Thrashing is just virtual crashing.

Working...