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.
The Comic (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
What's wrong with hate symbols? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: What's wrong with hate symbols? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: What's wrong with hate symbols? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: What's wrong with hate symbols? (Score:5, Insightful)
The use of Federal hate crime legislation was the only way the stranglehold of White Supremacist Jim Crow laws were finally loosed in the former slave states, a hundred years after the Thirteenth Amendment was supposed to have guaranteed freedom for African Americans. You may dislike them, and in some ways I might even agree that they have been a blunt instrument, but the fact remains that if Congress had not passed the Civil Rights acts, and the Executive had not been willing to use them to target the purveyors of systemic inequity in the South, it's almost certain that it would have been decades longer before something approaching equal rights would have been achieved.
And no one is getting arrested for this appropriation of a damned frog symbol, but the creator and others are trying to "de-meme" it. Isn't that what a free society does? Where a group believes there is some injustice, it puts for the argument, perhaps even vigorously, that the injustice needs to be righted? It almost seems to me that some peoples' ideal free society is where certain people can literally say anything they want, and no one is ever allowed to call what they say into question. Again and again, what I see from the Trump camp and the Alt-right isn't the notion of freedom of speech, but rather freedom from consequences. Whether it's Milos concocting fake tweets to go after a black actress because he didn't like the movie she was in, or guys running around spouting thinly veiled (or sometimes not even veiled) racism, and the expectation always is "If you try to shame me, you're a fascist!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It almost seems to me that some peoples' ideal free society is where certain people can literally say anything they want, and no one is ever allowed to call what they say into question. Again and again, what I see from the Trump camp and the Alt-right isn't the notion of freedom of speech, but rather freedom from consequences.
In another article on Slashdot [slashdot.org], we have people boycotting a Silicon Valley business associated with a CEO who has dared to donate to Trump. And we have a GOP office being firebombed [cnn.com] just the other day. But hey, it's all good because those are evil Republicans, right?
Don't you dare pin this all on the right. I've seen more than plenty from the left as well. Fascist assholes who simply want to silence their opposition are all over the spectrum, sadly.
Re: What's wrong with hate symbols? (Score:5, Insightful)
In another article on Slashdot [slashdot.org], we have people boycotting a Silicon Valley business associated with a CEO who has dared to donate to Trump.
That's freedom of association and it's at least as fundamental a right as free speech. If that's how they choose to stand up for what they believe in, that's their business. You and I, in turn, may use this information to decide whom we want to associate with. I don't see the problem.
And we have a GOP office being firebombed [cnn.com] just the other day.
That's a crime. That is a problem. I hope whoever did it is caught and does hard time.
Don't you dare pin this all on the right.
More to the point, don't pretend that "the right" or "the left" is a heterogeneous mass. In both cases, we're talking about a loose association of different individuals and groups with different agendas, some of whom are extremists.
To paraphrase a friend of mine:
It's okay to be a conservative; some values are worth preserving and defending. It's okay to be a progressive; the times they are a-changing. It's okay to be a radical; sometimes the joint needs to be shaken up. It's okay to be all three, perhaps on different issues. But it's never okay to be a fundamentalist.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank god for Slashdotters with brains. I remember when the mark of a nerd was they read decent hard SF books by people like Robert Heinlein. They started with the juvies and learned about the importance of freedom of speech, and of association, and the difference between what people choose to do and what governments do. They learned nuance and thought about governance as well as learning science. I miss all that.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that we also read Neil Stephenson and got a real gritty look at what a world without strong government looks like - and it's nothign but unadulterated evil. So the smart ones learned to trust nobody with power (that includes the power of being very rich). And yes we demand government restrain the power of the rich - because it's the only weapon we have against them - while we ourselves restrain the government through the weapons we have against them - like the courts and the ballot.
Re: (Score:3)
Really not sure why you think this contradicts what I was saying. I was referring to the blithering idiot who doesn't understand why a consumer boycott is a completely different thing from a firebombing.
Re: (Score:2)
I misinterpreted your post then, and was responding to what I *thought* you meant.
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, don't pretend that "the right" or "the left" is a heterogeneous mass.
Yeah but if you don't give him that, he literally ends up with nothing and has to shut up. Not really gonna happen is it.
People like that have to rage against one monolithic enemy, even if it doesn't really exist. Because the alternative is a complicated world.
Re: What's wrong with hate symbols? (Score:5, Interesting)
In another article on Slashdot, we have people boycotting a Silicon Valley business associated with a CEO who has dared to donate to Trump.
That's freedom of association and it's at least as fundamental a right as free speech.
Good thing the startups aren't making wedding cakes.
Re: What's wrong with hate symbols? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're free to become a closed-membership baker. The fact that it's commercially infeasible is your own problem. If you want to sell to the public, then you have to sell to the entire public, not just white anglo-saxon protestant straights.
Next thing you know they'll demand that businesses sell to blacks. The nerve of some people...
Re: (Score:2)
In another article on Slashdot, we have people boycotting a Silicon Valley business associated with a CEO who has dared to donate to Trump.
That's freedom of association and it's at least as fundamental a right as free speech. If that's how they choose to stand up for what they believe in, that's their business. You and I, in turn, may use this information to decide whom we want to associate with. I don't see the problem.
It's good to see someone understands this. It's unfortunate that many people will only apply this when it is in terms of liberals being able to disassociate from people on the right, but won't apply it to a baker or photographer who doesn't want to participate in a ceremony they believe to be sacrilegious.
Re: (Score:2)
Except your group goes out and make it a point to get others to ostracize the group whose beliefs and opinions differ from yours using the threat of wielding social and economic punishment against them if they don't align with your politics. Fundamentally anti-democratic.
LOL. Boo-fucking-hoo. If your ideas die out in the marketplace, tough shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually no - that is fundamentally democratic. OPPOSING our right to do so is what's fundamentally undemocratic. In fact - the ability to do so is literally WHY we have freedoms !
Re: (Score:2)
Unless what you're trying to exercise your democratic right not to associate with happens to be one of the blessed "protected classes." Then your rights are trumped (npi) by theirs.
Some animals were created more equal than others, evidently.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no crime in a citizen choosing not to associate with anybody so you're full of shit.
The only exceptions to that law is a public servant or a business- which are, legitimate, exceptions - because without those exceptions if you're unlucky enough to be born in the wrong class you can very easily be unable to buy food, unable to procure any services - even find yourself unable to get a driving license because the local DMV officer doesn't like your class.
Basically - you're just plain lying since anybo
Re: (Score:2)
There is no crime in a citizen choosing not to associate with anybody so you're full of shit.
anybody else is - in fact - perfectly free to not associate based on any of those classes. You may draw scorn (well deserved scorn) but government will do nothing to stop you.
Bullshit. You moved the goalpost from business to personal association, then back it up with the law rather than the basic facts of the actions. Then you proceed to argue as if the law can be assumed to be equitable; a belief comparable to believing that angels and Santa Claus are real.
You're fine with Pao and co. not doing business with someone else because they choose not to associate with them, because you approve of their reasons. Those reasons are literally the only difference between their actions and
Re: What's wrong with hate symbols? (Score:2)
Now you are even more full of shit and your own example is not even an example of what you claim it is. Nobody has declared that they will refuse to do business with Peter Thiel the person. If anybody did it would be illegal anyway since Thiel is in a protected class (he is gay).
His company is being boycotted by another. Thats an entirely different thing. Freedom of association applies to people not businesses. So simply put: businesses cannot discriminate against people but anybody can discriminate against
Re: (Score:2)
"Then you proceed to argue as if the law can be assumed to be equitable; a belief comparable to believing that angels and Santa Claus are real."
Uhh, apparently you failed to remember "Equal Protection Under The Law" which is DIRECTLY WRITTEN in our laws, which makes it absolutely real.
Not my fault if you're too much of a bitch to stand up and fight for your rights in a courtroom and let others trample over them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> And we have a GOP office being firebombed [cnn.com] just the other day.
Interesting how you ignore the context in which it happened - the same week where almost the entire remaining republican guard abandoned Trump and Trump made several public speeches accusing them of disloyalty, of rigging the election etc. etc. etc.
There is at LEAST even odds that it was a Trump supporter who did it, to punish the GOP establishment for not supporting Trump any more. We won't know for sure until somebody is arrested
Re: (Score:3)
A new video investigation released Monday by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Action shows how Democratic-aligned organizations used a tactic called 'bird-dogging' to incite violence and chaos at Trump rallies for media consumption. A key Clinton operative is captured on camera saying, "It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But they're inciting riots and blocking freeways.
The modern left are fascists. The Podesta emails prove they own the media and the whole show is staged, the undercover videos prove they're using threats and violence to intimidate their political opposition (and in an organized, directed fashion), and now they've got their own Kristallnacht firebombing the opposition's political organizations. This is the part where you're supposed to say "Are we the baddies?" [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
With no evidence - the odds would be EXACTLY even - since we would have absolutely no way to predict which of the two groups that despise the GOP establishment had done this action. Since we DO have some evidence, but that evidence is entirely circumstantial, I used the term 'at least' since in fact, the odds are slightly in favour of it being a Trump supporter. At the time of the events there were far more Trump supporters with much more motive than democrats who could have done it. The phrase 'NAZI' on t
Re: (Score:2)
"You are an idiot. Facsism is NOT a left ideology."
Fascism had plenty of left-leaning ideologies; socialism is rather credited as a left-leaning ideology. But as it was, when the Fascists came around in WWI via Italy, they pulled from both dies and considered themselves centric instead of left or right.
"You should probably shut up and let the informed adults talk."
Utterly ironic that you say that after your ignorant-ass blurb.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. They are quite explicit about it when pushed too:
expecting people to be allowed to have contrary opinions and not attacking them for is it [slashdot.org] [sic]
They go around screaming at everyone else about their Freedom of Speech, while demanding that others hold their tongue because the consequences of what they are saying are unpalatable.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh boy! Everyone's favorite anti-democratic pro-fascist poster is back! I wonder if I can now count you as my own personal stalker.
Yes, expecting that people have different opinions and *not* attacking them is fascism for you. Good to see you're still so cowardly that in that same thread you haven't responded to anything else, while still claiming "I'm attacking people" when I show you the face of the modern left engaging in witch hunts. Perhaps you'd like another? Like this person who's also on the fa [archive.is]
Re: (Score:2)
You have repeatedly cited Eich as you example of when someone should not be "attacked". By that definition, attacking is criticising and declining to use products he is associated with. Therefore, you are anti-free speech, because you clearly stated that you think people should not speak when it can be inconvenient for someone else.
What specifically did people in the Eich case that isn't simply them exercising freedom of speech which you object to? You keep saying they "forced" him out of his job, but never
Re: (Score:2)
Oh hey, I thought I was your favorite anti-democratic pro-fascist poster. I guess I'm only your second favorite now :(
Tell you what, I don't really have much time, so can you just make your usual claims about what I said then provide me with a long list of links, none of which actually contain anything relevant?
Well since I've never called you that, I'm sure you can cough up the links where I've labeled you that.
Sure, you want me to start with your anti-gamergate stuff, or the parts where you refuse to look at actual evidence of anti-gamergate people engaging in everything that you claim GG did. I mean you've got great company with this guy right here. [oneangrygamer.net] Or do you want me to start with the stuff regarding twitter again that you refused to look at and ran away over?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you want me to start with your anti-gamergate stuff, or the parts where you refuse to look at actual evidence of anti-gamergate people engaging in everything that you claim GG did. I mean you've got great company with this guy right here. Or do you want me to start with the stuff regarding twitter again that you refused to look at and ran away over?
Sure, do all of those! I could use a laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
>It amuses.
But I really, really hate you. How can you possibly be amused with all of the malevolence I've directly conveyed to you with my words, you utter ponce.
Well, he's taken your words for what they are, the bleating of a impotent hateful gimp. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm... you need to actually read the thing you quoted. It doesn't say what you think it says.
Popper WAS defending things like hate speech laws - on the BASIS that hate movements may respond to rational argument with violence. But while he certainly opposed violent suppression of argument - that was not what the paper or even that paragraph was about.
Popper correctly ascertained that free speech (and all other freedoms) can only be defended if it's somewhat limited - if those who would deny others freedom en
Re: (Score:2)
Because, if you try to answer *their* bad speech with good speech they usually answer you with guns. The only answer then is to bring your own gun - and it's better then if those guns are the government's guns because street-warfare tends to be bad for everybody.
Which we already do. Last I checked, it's still illegal to just shoot people because they say things you don't like. There's still no justification for hate speech laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Sticks and stones: no need to make those illegal.
Sticks and stones being wielded by people in order to assault and injure? That act is illegal. Not the sticks and stones themselves, but the act of wielding them in such a way.
Re: (Score:2)
>Sticks and stones being wielded by people in order to assault and injure? That act is illegal. Not the sticks and stones themselves, but the act of wielding them in such a way
As is threatening to do so. And the same line works quite well for words actually.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no level where hate speech does NOT fall firmly OUTSIDE the harm principle - so literally the most libertarian interpretation of freedom short of "might makes right" is perfectly compatible with anti-hate-speech laws. It's founders wouldn't have said so - but they didn't have access to the knowledge we now do. A philosophy that is not willing to update based on new scientific knowledge is not a philosophy - it's a dangerous cult.
How about this... I support and defend your right to call me anything you damn well please. Full Stop
Can you match that?
Re: (Score:2)
"vulnerable to physical harm from words"
Anybody that lets some vocalization physically hurt them is an utter moron, full stop. If a word hurts you, you have SERIOUS MENTAL DEFICIENCIES.
"if you call somebody a 'tranny' you are, as far as I'm concerned with the best science on my side, engaging in an act of attempted murder"
Unlike your ugly ass, I've worked in porno. Most trannies have a much more solid head on their shoulders than you or your shitty 'best science' (almost guaranteed to be bullshit) think, an
Re: (Score:2)
If you worked in legal porn, then the transgender people you met were adults - thus that would make them the ones who got through the extremely high mortality adolescence that transgender people experience. They would therefore, logically, be the LEAST representative sample you could possibly find.
Re: (Score:2)
If a stone hit your head hard enough, i'm pretty sure it can cause permanent neuroendocrine damage several times worse than a picture of a nazi frog.
Re: (Score:3)
Sticks and stones can break my bones, and words can cause permanent neuroendocrine damage.
We're headed towards that -- where your thoughts become merely physical processes in your brain, and this becomes physical evidence -- bye bye Fifth Amendment.
The only question is whether the 5th will disappear before the 1st as people argue the bad feelings your words cause can be traced to the same physical brain processes, and therefore banned.
Don't laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
It's wrong when people get hurt. See here Alex Jones caught on tape planning terror attacks against Clinton rally: video link [youtube.com].
That video link shows the opposite of what you claim.
A new video investigation released Monday by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Action shows how Democratic-aligned organizations used a tactic called 'bird-dogging' to incite violence and chaos at Trump rallies for media consumption. A key Clinton operative is captured on camera saying, "It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker."
Insanity (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you describe "technically legal but shady as fuck" "rigging"? If people are not constrained or otherwise inhibited in their use of their constitutional right to vote, and if those ballots are not fabricated or otherwise mishandled in a way to commit an act of electoral fraud, then what exactly goes through a voter's head as they mark their ballot is their concern alone, and the idea that somehow their vote is worth less because they don't happen to agree with you, or they don't choose to assess the best
Re: (Score:2)
Can you describe "technically legal but shady as fuck" "rigging"?
How about CNN giving Hillary the debate questions ahead of time?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is shady, but how exactly does that constitute electoral fraud?
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't the guy you were talking to say "rigging" isn't necessarily "electoral fraud?"
The definition of rigged [thefreedictionary.com] in this context is "To manipulate dishonestly for personal gain." Doesn't a debate where one side gets the questions ahead of time count as manipulated, dishonestly, and for personal gain? How about the DNC hiring thugs and the mentally ill to pose as Bernie supporters and start fights with Trump supporters at his Chicago rally, dishonestly manipulating the media narrative and public opinion of both
Re: (Score:2)
"afaik Trump hasn't gone there"
That's a pretty impressive rock you live under, my friend. Trump tweets on this subject include: "Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that the ammendments are numbered chronologically - not by importance, right ? Right ?!
False (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The complete and utter fucking disaster the founding fathers abandoned almost immediately because it was an unworkable mess ?
Re: (Score:3)
Lol, it was Hillary's campaign that started all that election rigging crap.
Really? Got a link? All I see if Trump whinging about rigging (maybe because he knows he's going to lose, because he's a detestable character)?
Re: (Score:2)
This one does.
http://projects.fivethirtyeigh... [fivethirtyeight.com]
Effect (Score:4, Insightful)
Just rename it Streisand Frog
How many of these "anti-Semites" are DNC plants? (Score:3, Insightful)
How much of that racism and anti-Semitism is actually real, and how much — "false flag" operations by DNC-operatives like these [cloudfront.net]?
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the link [cloudfront.net] carefully (and watch the video). Some of the things listed really were "false flag" operations. Such as:
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Racism in jest is still racism. It's not like phrasing it as a joke somehow makes it less demeaning. There are ways to show racism ironically (the Monty Python gameshow skit Prejudice shows how satirical racism can be used effectively), but whatever 4chan's basement dwellers are doing, it isn't satire, and it most certainly isn't ironic. Perhaps it is the verbal equivalent of farting in a small room, but just because you laugh afterwards doesn't mean it smells any sweeter.
Re: (Score:2)
whatever 4chan's basement dwellers are doing, it isn't satire, and it most certainly isn't ironic.
Most 4channers are just trolls. But ironically, there are some genuinely ironic types in there as well. I don't think it's worth sifting through to find them, but they do crop up.
They are stopping? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:They are stopping? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:They are stopping? (Score:4, Informative)
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!"
And the results are in (Score:3)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost as if you can't force a meme...
Actaully the WSJ debunked Hillary's claim already (Score:5, Informative)
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
Jesus Christ (Score:3)
So, we're going to pretend Trump is antisemitic? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does it say Trump is a racist or anti-Semite? You are spouting a non-sequitur. It does call the alt-right racist and anti-Semitic, which is of course true, but not Trump.
"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."
Uh, that was hard?
I mean, I know we don't rtfa around here but that came from the summary.
Anyway, it's sad that they pretend that antisemitism is a disease of the right when it's a far-left/far-right issue. Donald Trump has nothing to do with it - ask Hillary where the capitol of Israel is.
Why the rush? (Score:2)
Just wait three more weeks or so, and it'll be all over.
normies (Score:2)
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'm envious (Score:2)
I really, really, really envy some people for their problems.
Out here in the real world, people have real problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have some archive links as proof? be cooler if 4channers[1] did it rather than twitter users: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09... [dailycaller.com]
[1] hey mook sometimes used that term!
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe it's just that the water-off-a-duck's-back thing got old and he decided that enough was enough?
Re: (Score:2)
No. It's much simpler. You don't pay a price, whether professionally or in terms of social capital, when voicing your support for Clinton. You pay a tremendous price when voicing your support for Trump. There are also costs, though comparatively less, to adamantly staying neutral while the media speculates over your political beliefs. Therefore, publicly coming out as pro-Clinton is the safest choice, and all the better if you really do support Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
>You don't pay a price, whether professionally or in terms of social capital, when voicing your support for Clinton
Because there isn't a very real risk that Clinton would start a nuclear third world war. At least, no bigger than any of the other people who have run for president since the bomb was invented, while Trump's approach would fucking guarantee one. OF COURSE the backlash is worse when the candidate you support represents a real and present danger to the entire fucking world, and has promoted po
Re: (Score:2)
He's either been offered a shitload of money and book deals, or his life was threatened.
You forgot that he might have been abducted by alien ant people and his cloned body sent back with an anti-matter brain capable of destroying the universe.
Re: (Score:2)
Next up, people across the internet band together to defend the honor and dignity of a real person!
WIll. Never. Happen.
Re: (Score:2)
They're called white knights. They usually only show up to defend a fair maiden when they attack someone, and get called out on their bullshit. Kinda like this... [i.sli.mg]
Re: (Score:2)
Now there's nothing actually wrong with being Jewish.
Oh oh... I'm telling on you
Re: (Score:2)
The wack jobs on the right want the Jews to go to Israel. The wack jobs on the left want Israel destroyed. Hmmm....