Anti-Defamation League Declares Pepe the Frog a Hate Symbol (time.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anti-Defamation League Declares Pepe the Frog a Hate Symbol (time.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday September 27, 2016 @12:45PM from the offensive-language dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TIME: The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has declared a popular internet meme depicting a cartoon frog to be a hate symbol. Pepe the Frog's beginnings were unoffensive: he is the creation of comic book creator Matt Furie, who featured the frog as a character in the series Boy's Club beginning in 2005. The character subsequently became a beloved meme, often called the "sad frog meme" and shared with a speech bubble reading "Feels good man" or "Feels bad man." But recently, as the Daily Beast reported in May, the character has been co-opted by a faction of Internet denizens who decided to reclaim it from the mainstream, and began sharing it in anti-Semitic contexts. "Images of the frog, variously portrayed with a Hitler-like mustache, wearing a yarmulke or a Klan hood, have proliferated in recent weeks in hateful messages aimed at Jewish and other users on Twitter," the ADL wrote in a statement. "Once again, racists and haters have taken a popular Internet meme and twisted it for their own purposes of spreading bigotry and harassing users," wrote ADL CEO Jonathan A. Greenblatt.

398 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

These filters! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 12:47 · Score: 0

The Internet filters! They do nothing!
1. Re: These filters! by Maritz · 2016-09-27 20:34 · Score: 1
  
  Since Saudi is controlled by the British
  LOL
  And the Vatican owns America, yeah?
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
2. Re: These filters! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  And your point? The British have owned the Saudis for generations. This is fact. I am Britsh, Oxford educated. I "chill out" with Saudi royalty. They belong to my family. They grew up knowning who owns them as much as I grew up knowing that, one day, I will own them. They are my birthright and they will be my legacy; don't underestimate the influence of the old boys' club. Britain made the Saudis.
3. Re: These filters! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  Pepe the Jew did 9/11. False flag terrorism feels good man.
4. Re: These filters! by Rakarra · 2016-09-28 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  President Obama just vetoed the ability of the families to even sue Saudi.
  As he should have. It was a stupid idea from the very beginning. Sovereign Immunity is an important concept, and there's no reason why this can't be turned against the US as easily as American citizens try to use it.
Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 12:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Who the fuck is the ADL? Why the fuck do I give a shit?
-- Internet
1. Re: Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:26 · Score: 0
  
  Greenblatt.
  Of course.
2. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:59 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The ADL is a bunch of butthurt SJW's that want to make peoples lives miserable because they have no life and will never lead a happy life.
3. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 14:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think when your hair trigger sensitive response to things is to go straight to blaming things on SJW's and that social justice has become an entirely bad thing to you, you've lost sight of what matters. I have a strong dislike for the nonsense that SJW's do as well but you have to remember, we do need people who are aware of social destructiveness and people need to frequently push back on hate.
  Internet hate has been growing for a long time now and if you reflect on some of the things that you and your friends think and say, and compare that to ten years ago you might be shocked to realise that hate has crept into your attitudes in a pretty insidious way.
4. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  Once upon a time they were a fairly well respected group that fought against discrimination (initially Antisemitism, then they branched out into racism, bigotry, extremist groups, etc). These days though they pretty much label anything they don't agree with, or anything that they think might get them a sound bite, as some form of discrimination/violence. They have had to make several retractions after wildly accusing people of antisemitism, they've been caught placing agent provocateurs into groups & list survivalist/militia groups having open meetings in average public restaurants as a form of extremism.
5. Re:Who said what? by Hylandr · 2016-09-27 15:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  social justice has become an entirely bad thing
  Any 'Justice' that denies the legal system it's due process is an absolute aberrant evil that must be destroyed at every opportunity. We send soldiers to other countries to kill powerful SJWs that hold the reigns of a regime that squashes dissenting opinions. You should read "Mein Kampf". It's the SJW to Dictator roadmap.
  
  and people need to frequently push back on hate.
  Damn right we do. Which is all SJW's spew. If they don't get their way they throw giant child tantrums.
  
  Internet hate has been growing for a long time now
  That's a mixed bag there. There's anger growing at the people that have appointed themselves the 'champions' of self appointed arbiters of orthodox intolerance that themselves oppress the majority. Then there's the hate SJWs themselves level at anyone that doesn't bow to their will.
  'Justice' should be dealt with by the court systems according to the laws elected by the majority. Not meted out by a minority population with no concern for the anything but their own perverted sense of right and wrong.
  
  --
  ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
6. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 16:11 · Score: 0
  
  Sources? (reliable ones - not stormfront type sites).
7. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 16:17 · Score: 0
  
  "...we do need people who are aware of social destructiveness..."
  Hmm, that's an interesting proposition...are you unable to think for yourself? Are you unable to make observations of activities and decide for yourself what is "socially destructive" and what isn't. I was able to do that by the time I was 18, I don't consider myself special in that regard, but then again, the more I read comments like yours the more I realize that maybe I am a herdsman living amongst sheep. Sad really, I had higher hopes for mankind.
  Please do not use "we" when speaking only of yourself. O and take a critical thinking class or something, you'really not doing yourself and the rest of us any favors being so compliant.
8. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 16:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Internet hate has been growing for a long time now.
  At basically the same rate non-techies have started adopting the internet in their every day lives I suspect.
  The internet was a nice place before all the normals started using it.
9. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 16:31 · Score: 0
  
  Or, to put it another way, Pepe the Frog was not a hate symbol until the altcucks got hold of it. This is why we can't have nice things.
10. Re:Who said what? by Z00L00K · 2016-09-27 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  Calling the Pepe frog a hate symbol just makes it one. The reality is that it's just a stupid drawing.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
11. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 17:21 · Score: 0
  
  ADL is a front for fascist Jews.
  I declare the Anti-Defamation League to be a fascist organization. Trust me, I am Anonymous.
12. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 17:39 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  That was oddly specific. Did you get hard thinking about that?
13. Re:Who said what? by Opportunist · 2016-09-27 17:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  As opposed to getting in line and do what the outraged, loudmouthed minority says?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
14. Re:Who said what? by Opportunist · 2016-09-27 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  So I guess whoever slapped swastikas on that frog can now say "mission accomplished"?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
15. Re:Who said what? by bistromath007 · 2016-09-27 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  Not giving a fuck has crept into my attitude. That's not the same thing.
16. Re:Who said what? by Mashiki · 2016-09-27 19:01 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You want to know what's really funny? If you read the actual ADL post on it, it actually says Pepe isn't a racist meme. It says that some people use it for such, but that doesn't make it so. Anymore then using something else in a meme context. Fuck the media is really trying to push this bullshit hard. So are the retards like the AC that /. promoted this worthless bunch of articles on in the first place. Can't get much more pathetic, and when you hear people talking about this? They're laughing at you, even the normies.
  From the ADL itself:
  
  However, because so many Pepe the Frog memes are not bigoted in nature, it is important to examine use of the meme only in context. The mere fact of posting a Pepe meme does not mean that someone is racist or white supremacist. However, if the meme itself is racist or anti-Semitic in nature, or if it appears in a context containing bigoted or offensive language or symbols, then it may have been used for hateful purposes.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
17. Re:Who said what? by bickerdyke · 2016-09-27 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'd rather say that putting a Hitler moustache on it made it a hate symbol-
  
  --
  bickerdyke
18. Re:Who said what? by mwvdlee · 2016-09-27 19:40 · Score: 0
  
  ADL is what happens when you let terrorists win.
  They're calling an innocent cartoon frog a hate symbol because rascists have used it as such.
  Nice way to kowtow to your evil overlords, ADL.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
19. Re:Who said what? by Hognoxious · 2016-09-27 20:18 · Score: 1
  
  Mustaches like that were very popular in the inter-war years. Only fucking idiots associate them particularly with Hitler.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
20. Re:Who said what? by Maritz · 2016-09-27 20:36 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  the more I realize that maybe I am a herdsman living amongst sheep.
  Oh look, someone on Slashdot who thinks he's smarter than everybody else. Weird.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
21. Re:Who said what? by Maritz · 2016-09-27 20:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'm no ADL fan, but this is from their website:
  
  "However, because so many Pepe the Frog memes are not bigoted in nature, it is important to examine use of the meme only in context. The mere fact of posting a Pepe meme does not mean that someone is racist or white supremacist. However, if the meme itself is racist or anti-Semitic in nature, or if it appears in a context containing bigoted or offensive language or symbols, then it may have been used for hateful purposes."
  Kinda makes you look stupid going off on that rant, to be honest.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
22. Re:Who said what? by Maritz · 2016-09-27 20:39 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  They don't like people acknowledging that Palestinians are human, for example. That's apparently anti-semitic.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
23. Re:Who said what? by Maritz · 2016-09-27 20:41 · Score: 1
  
  (Fuck you, Slashdot, and also a fuck you to the sorry pieces of shit who own it right now).
  The stories are user-submitted. You complete fucking mong.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
24. Re:Who said what? by bickerdyke · 2016-09-27 20:43 · Score: 2
  
  ...if seen in a time piece of that era. And yes, mixing up Charlie Chaplin's "Tramp" with Hitler just because of the moustache would indeed be funny.
  But that friggin frog is contemporary.. well.. "artwork".
  And as you mentioned, those moustaches were very popular in the inter-war years, but you might have noticed that they aren't today. So any current usage is a direct referrence to either
  a) general facial hair style in the 30s
  b) Charlie Chaplin
  c) Hitler
  If seen in conjunction with antisemitic slogans, all ambiguity is resolved.
  
  --
  bickerdyke
25. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 20:53 · Score: 0
  
  social justice has become an entirely bad thing
  Mob justice is always an entirely bad thing.
26. Re:Who said what? by TimothyHollins · 2016-09-27 21:50 · Score: 0
  
  I would mod you all the way to the social media supreme court if I could.
27. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 23:16 · Score: 0
  
  ... is an absolute aberrant evil that must be destroyed at every opportunity.
  
  We send soldiers to other countries to kill powerful SJWs that hold the reigns of a regime that squashes dissenting opinions.
  Do you not see the irony of these two statements
  You win stupid post of the day award.
  The first is an opinion, the later a fact. No irony.
28. Re:Who said what? by thinkwaitfast · 2016-09-27 23:22 · Score: 2
  
  Sadly the most accurate thing that I'll read all year.
29. Re:Who said what? by drinkypoo · 2016-09-27 23:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Kinda makes you look stupid going off on that rant, to be honest.
  This story makes Slashdot look stupid, if we're being honest. The summary is bullshit. How did it make the front page? Either a bunch of dipshit slashdotters voted it up from the firehose, or a dipshit "editor" promoted it. Either way, it's stupid bullshit that helps make Slashdot grate.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
30. Re:Who said what? by Mashiki · 2016-09-27 23:37 · Score: 2
  
  Eternal September Brother. Remember that day as it continues to live on in infamy.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
31. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  ADL is the Anti-Defamatory League. They are the Israeli lobby in America. They are the most powerful lobby and essentially control the American government.
  Ever wonder why USA continually gives billions of (tax payer's) dollars to Israel and then turns a blind eye to the vicious war crimes and illegal occupation of Palestine?
  Because ADL. Because blackmail. Trump and Clinton both support these terrorists. Neither will be 'selected' if they don't.
32. Re:Who said what? by AmiMoJo · 2016-09-27 23:49 · Score: 0
  
  ACs are rather easy to trigger these days. Naturally the instinctive, Pavlovian reaction to something assumed to be the evil meddling of SJWs ensures they won't read TFA.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
33. Re:Who said what? by mjwx · 2016-09-28 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  Who the fuck is the ADL? Why the fuck do I give a shit?
  -- Internet
  And this is the correct response.
  
  Every time that you give these people the wind of your fart, it validates them and their method. Ignore and move on.
  
  Seriously though, I find the Anti-ADL to be a bigger bunch of butthurt whiners, who also need to be ignored. Same kind of attention whores, slightly different whine.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
34. Re:Who said what? by Tyrannicsupremacy · 2016-09-28 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  I especially like how they picked some of the best pepes for the bottom of the page. Many laughs.
  
  --
  http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
35. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 00:26 · Score: 0
  
  I guess I don't get why they even put up the article then. They make this whole big hoopla that says that Pepe wasn't originally a racist/white supremecist/etc meme but has been twisted to be so.. but then follow it up with "but really this isn't anything to worry about, and it's only an issue when posted in that context."
  It just feels like an unnecessary post at that point. "Hey, look at all this bad shit! But it's only bad if used for bad"
36. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  The internet, like /b, was never good. People with systematized racist beliefs are not part of the sociopolitical mainstream. They tend to be at the fringes, and that included early adoption of newsgroups and the world wide web as well.
37. Re:Who said what? by Mashiki · 2016-09-28 01:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Keep in mind that this is exactly what the left keep pushing with their "hate crime" laws, and wanting to implement kangaroo courts for them. We have them in Canada, they're abused. Up until Ezra Levant and Mark Styen won they had a 100% conviction rate. The head of the CHRC was also found to have been deliberately planting evidence against his political enemies then running them against the system to ruin them.
  You guys in the US have gotten your first taste of it, it's called a Title IX tribunal.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
38. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 01:40 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  So we shouldn't be able to point out someone is a hateful bigot until it's legally proven? Most people I've heard use the term "SJW", including you, seem to fit the definition to a tee. You act like people shouldn't be able to point out what they see as immoral behavior unless it's mandated by the your government, which is a terrifying concept akin to an ISIS democracy.
39. Re:Who said what? by Hylandr · 2016-09-28 02:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You act like people shouldn't be able to point out what they see as immoral behavior unless it's mandated by the your government,
  That's fine. Everyone can point out what they think is wrong all day, then draft laws and vote on it, with measures for enforcement.
  SJWs rarely work that way, opting to mete out their own version of justice by harassing and finding ways to ruin the victims lives by getting them fired, evicted, etc.
  
  --
  ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
40. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 02:12 · Score: 0
  
  For the longest time I thought Green Day's "Wake me up when September" ends was about the Eternal September.
  Now I just think it's the most appropriate title for a song. EVER.
41. Re:Who said what? by Hylandr · 2016-09-28 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, Calling for Law and order is now Right Wing? ... Wow.
  And yea, I had to look up the Acronym.
  
  --
  ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
42. Re: Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  We weren't all Tim Berners-Lee. Aren't you forgetting the basement-dwelling neckbeards?
43. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  Disagreeing with neo-fascists like yourself is not a synonym for "hate."
44. Re:Who said what? by bluefoxlucid · 2016-09-28 02:16 · Score: 2
  
  And this is the correct response.
  (((echo)))
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
45. Re:Who said what? by Hylandr · 2016-09-28 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  *Whooosh*
  
  --
  ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
46. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Who cares?
  The ADL is in and of itself a hate group.
47. Re:Who said what? by pipingguy · 2016-09-28 02:26 · Score: 2
  
  More and more innocuous things are being redefined as 'hate' and 'violence' by people with mental problems and serious personality disorders in order to advance their political agendas and desire for power over others. This will end well...
48. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  As one AC to another, just when do you peg the start date of when the normals started using it?
49. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 02:32 · Score: 0
  
  You say that as though the headlines and summaries aren't specifically designed to mislead and enflame passions.
50. Re:Who said what? by AvitarX · 2016-09-28 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Could be a reference to Michael Jordan
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
51. Re:Who said what? by squiggleslash · 2016-09-28 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  The summary is fine. Pepe the Frog is a beloved meme, check. Pepe has been recently adopted by the far right, check. The only thing wrong is the headline, which can easily be misread as meaning the ADL has made a blanket "All uses of Pepe are examples of Hate".
  The biggest thing that's wrong is... well, Slashdot's readers. Give them something you can easily misunderstand, and they'll launch half cocked, often with an interpretation even more stupid than the obvious misinterpretation.
  And, BTW, to the OP of this thread: the ADL is one of the oldest surviving and famous groups that fights anti-semitism. It's hardly obscure, and a quick Google search would have given you the answer.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
52. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  social justice has become an entirely bad thing
  Mob justice is always an entirely bad thing.
  Except when it's done to our enemies.
53. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 02:48 · Score: 0
  
  Remember remember Eternal September
  Usenet, noob season and bots.
  I see no reason why Usenet, noob season
  Should ever be forgot...
54. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  So, Crybullying until you get your way is pointing out bigotry?
  Ruining the livelyhood of people you don't like is pointing out bigotry?
  Blamining everything on white males because you are too lazy to accomplish anything for yourself is pointing out bigotry?
55. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  When "Eternal September" became "Summerfags", I knew it was all over.
  Now that shitty internet is related to kids having MORE free time, what is the point.
56. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 02:56 · Score: 0
  
  Who the fuck is the ADL?
  After reading this declaration, I'd say it is a group of people without any credibility.
57. Re:Who said what? by Dread_ed · 2016-09-28 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Putting a Hitler mustache on it made it hilarious!
  Grow a funny bone and join me in laughing at what folly it is to be human.
  
  --
  When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
58. Re:Who said what? by myowntrueself · 2016-09-28 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  I think when your hair trigger sensitive response to things is to go straight to blaming things on SJW's and that social justice has become an entirely bad thing to you, you've lost sight of what matters. I have a strong dislike for the nonsense that SJW's do as well but you have to remember, we do need people who are aware of social destructiveness and people need to frequently push back on hate.
  You better make sure its actual hate and not irony or dislike. Maybe you can invent some kind of 'hate meter' that we can strap to someones head and measure how much they hate something?
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
59. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  Ever wonder why USA continually gives billions of (tax payer's) dollars to Israel and then turns a blind eye to the vicious war crimes and illegal occupation of Palestine?
  As opposed to the blind eyes to the atrocities committed by the death cult living in Palestine? Israel should end its occupation, annex it, and push its subhuman occupants into the desert.
60. Re:Who said what? by AmiMoJo · 2016-09-28 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  Which powerful SJWs are you talking about? Hitler seems to be the ultimate anti-SJW, being rather prone to racism, sexism and equality. He thought that some people were literally sub-human, and the usual complaint about SJWs is that they think everyone is exactly equal and the same despite undeniable biological differences.
  It looks like the AC was right, the definition of SJW is "someone hurt my feelings by pointing out what an asshat I am, waaaah!"
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
61. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  Any 'Justice' that denies the legal system it's due process is an absolute aberrant evil that must be destroyed at every opportunity.
  
  Ah, so you are pro BLM! Good to hear!
62. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  Neckbeards 'gonna neckbeard
63. Re:Who said what? by Bing+Tsher+E · 2016-09-28 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Said 'Hate Meter' can even have a tattooing unit built into the inner surface where it meets the skin of the forehead.
  Then it can be simply placed on the candidate and it will automatically brand 'hater' on their forehead after the measurement cycle is complete, and can be moved to the head of the next candidate.
  Because, that's what people who use the phrase 'hater' to label other people want.
64. Re: Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  Just look at the MSM, no one cares about law and order, they want social media courts and majority rules.
  Law and order to is so yesteryear. What are you a conservative phffff. Loser, everyone is guilty by Twitter jury now.
65. Re:Who said what? by AmiMoJo · 2016-09-28 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  This and similar stories get up voted in the firehose. Not by "SJWs" or whatever, by people who want to have an angry rant about it. The summary was obviously carefully crafted to avoid linking to the original press release.
  There has been a definite effort to get more conservative leaning stories on Slashdot lately. Unfortunately they usually end up like this, untrue clickbait rage-inducing crap, designed simply to discredit and defame people they don't like.
  Just look near the top of the page, some ACs and random users ranting on about SJWs and Hitler, all based on a lie. It's as if they were just waiting for the story to go live so they could flood the comments with shitposting. The ACs could all be one person, the same one that submitted the story, no doubt with a few sock puppet accounts to get a few +1 insightful mods.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
66. Re: Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 03:39 · Score: 0
  
  Ginger people only feel resentment. Resentment at everyone, for everything. All SJWs are closet ginners. Cunts.
67. Re: Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  Too bad people have no idea what you are talking about so they will march right into it. In America, Canada and Europe are the way we should be, it's really sad.
68. Re:Who said what? by tehcyder · 2016-09-28 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  SJWs rarely work that way, opting to mete out their own version of justice by harassing and finding ways to ruin the victims lives by getting them fired, evicted, etc.
  If you are fired because you exposed by a "SJW" as doing something that is a fire-able offence, maybe you should not have committed that offence in the first place.
  Disclaimer: I'm not in the US, so it's not easy to fire people out of hand here.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
69. Re:Who said what? by Archangel+Michael · 2016-09-28 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  And when others do to them, that which they do to others, they cry butthurt tears and crawl as fast as they can to the same people they hated a few minutes ago to save their candyasses. They are the very hypocrites they whine about the most.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
70. Re:Who said what? by tehcyder · 2016-09-28 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Internet hate has been growing for a long time now.
  At basically the same rate non-techies have started adopting the internet in their every day lives I suspect. The internet was a nice place before all the normals started using it.
  Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
  The early internet was full of weirdoes and loonies, there just weren't so many of them in absolute numbers.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
71. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  fucking normies get out reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
72. Re:Who said what? by tehcyder · 2016-09-28 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Mustaches like that were very popular in the inter-war years. Only fucking idiots associate them particularly with Hitler.
  Yeah, and the Swastika is an old religious symbol, so people using it on a flag have nothing to do with the Nazis, right?
  Context is everything.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
73. Re:Who said what? by Archangel+Michael · 2016-09-28 04:15 · Score: 2
  
  Law and Order is fine and dandy until the tyrants use it to kill off any dissent.
  Lets try Liberty and Justice instead. Similar but not quite the same.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
74. Re: Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  You seriously think Hitler was anti social justice... Holy shit you need to go read a fucking book right now about why Hitler rose to power, and how he accomplished the horrid things he did.
  So quick google search says social justice is: justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.
  So you are telling me Hitler did not say the Jews had all the money, opportunities, and privilege... I mean he was wrong but that's still exactly what he said, got a majority to believe him, changed laws to stop it and in the end was a mass murdering asshat.
  Just like most social justice now is wrong but people still believe it because being a victim is easier than being personally responsible.
75. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps, but the original quip (>Internet hate has been growing for a long time now) is something eagerly paraded in headlines.
  
  One of you is wrong. Either it's you and the internets were once better (less bad if you prefer) or they're a broken record hyping up "new hate" that isn't new at all. Which is either ignorant (fair enough, they're Normals) or deliberately wrong, to either spin an agenda or simply hoard more clicks at the cost of society.
  
  Huh, that's a lot of nested "either"s.
76. Re:Who said what? by BronsCon · 2016-09-28 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  Right. So attack people who call out SJWs on their bullshit.
  
  The problem is that we have a group of people (SJWs) who've declared themselves the only ones who care about social justice and pushing back against hate, while doing nothing more than spewing their own brand of hatred and injustice. Meanwhile, we've got reasonable adults who see through the sham and, well...
  
  Skipping the rest of my rant and getting right to my point: "people who are aware of social destructiveness and [...] frequently push back on hate" are what we call reasonable. People who push their own brand of hate under the guise of pushing back against it are what we call SJWs; ironically, of course.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
77. Re:Who said what? by BronsCon · 2016-09-28 05:04 · Score: 2
  
  Meanwhile, if you're fired because your employer feels it's the only way to get the SJWs to leave them alone...
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
78. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  ...if it appears in a context containing bigoted or offensive language or symbols, then it may have been used for hateful purposes.
  So they're just the masters of stating the blindingly obvious
79. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  No, you're just an idiot.
80. Re:Who said what? by Hognoxious · 2016-09-28 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  d) Sparks.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
81. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  The internet, like /b, was never good.
  At one point in time, Youtube comments and Twitch chat didn't exist. You are objectively, demonstrably wrong.
82. Re:Who said what? by AthanasiusKircher · 2016-09-28 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  This story makes Slashdot look stupid, if we're being honest. The summary is bullshit. How did it make the front page?
  Slashdot isn't stupid. Stories like this get hundreds of comments and likely thousands of more views than a story like "Cool new feature in latest KDE release."
  Slashdot is now like almost every other site -- i.e., just about the advertising. Flamebait stories like this are the equivalent of TV news broadcasts running ads in the evening like, "This common snack food might kill your kids! Stay tuned through these commercials to hear the news at 11!" (And in those news stories you frequently find out that it's a relatively minor recall for something relatively minor; here you just realize that the reality is much less dire than it sounds too, but it's written to provoke a bunch of "SJWs are evil!" posts.)
  Now, let's not kid ourselves -- this is nothing new on Slashdot. It's just "back in the day" the flamewars were over Emacs vs. vi or GNOME vs. KDE or whatever. Even if there was a lot of ranting there, though, it was at least vaguely interesting because you'd sometimes get some useful technical details coming out.
  And even back then political stories tended to get a lot of discussion. But now they seem to be deliberately written to trigger flamewars. And the sad realization is that there's a much higher percentage of racist, misogynist, climate change-doubting bigots here than I'd like... and they're not only ready to rant, but people are ready to mod them up.
  (And no, I'm not a "SJW" on a mission to call out people who simply disagree as bigots -- I'm talking about the ACTUAL misinformed ignorance here from people who just want to rant, and the folks who seem ready at the trigger to mod them up.)
  Recently, I've been skipping a lot here and reading more over at Soylent. Yes, the news is roughly the same, and frequently they have stories a few days out of date too. And there's some bigotry there too. But at least it's not being driven deliberately by the editors there, as it is now here.
83. Re:Who said what? by NetNed · 2016-09-28 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Who the fuck are others to claim to be some moral compass and "point out" others as immoral? Do you want mob rule? Have you never read books like the Scarlet Letter? 1984 or Animal Farm? You "pointing out" what you and a mob deem "immoral" is just being the puppet for you government so that they use you as a tool of a means to an end. You want people dragged through the street for things you deem immoral with no rule of law. You want to pass judgement in some sort of Salem Witch Trial style of something you think is ok but is even more hateful and bigoted then the people you want to label as such. What ever happened to live and let live? No, we have those that claim to be high and mighty in the public eye, want to judge those they don't agree with while being a massive hypocrite behind closed door.
84. Re:Who said what? by poity · 2016-09-28 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Go ahead. You are your own worst enemies.
  You will discover in the future that your perverse logic and your ever-expanding definitions of words will have transformed accusations of "racist" and "hate speech" into phrases that are as stigmatized by the vast majority as accusations of "pinko commie" in our modern times. You are the new McCarthyists, and while you come from the other side of the political aisle, your reign of terror on the innocent as you root out perceived enemies makes you hardly any different.
  I'll happily goad you and mock you every step of the way.
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
85. Re:Who said what? by Rakarra · 2016-09-28 07:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Shut the fuck up with the "SJW" tag.
  I swear, you assholes who overuse SJW calling SJW-this and SJW-that have turned a once delightfully trollish term that describes people wandering into a situation they don't understand and shitting over the discussion with shrill screeching and white-knighting, and now "SJW!!!" is thrown at anyone who has even a shred of conscience about how to treat each other with respect. Don't like the KKK? You're a fucking SJW. Think that a full-time job ought to pay a living wage? Shut up, you fucking SJW.
  SJW is the new "Nazi." Now, when someone starts yammering on about SJW's, you can immediately dismiss them as blithering idiots. That's how badly the term has been abused, and that's how meaningless it has become.
86. Re: Who said what? by Rakarra · 2016-09-28 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  So quick google search says social justice is:
  There's a huge difference between "an SJW" and someone actually interested in fairness for all.
87. Re:Who said what? by Rakarra · 2016-09-28 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  The internet, like /b, was never good
  100% wrong, but thank you for playing.
88. Re:Who said what? by drinkypoo · 2016-09-28 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  SJWs rarely work that way, opting to mete out their own version of justice by harassing and finding ways to ruin the victims lives by getting them fired, evicted, etc.
  While no doubt there's plenty of so-called SJWs who behave that way, those tactics are used a lot more by the dickheads they fight with. You're surprised when they take up those tactics? See: Gamergate.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
89. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  If you actually believe pro-gamergaters were acting badly en masse, then all I have to ask you is what flavor was the koolaid?
  Anti-gamergaters were provably responsible for a lot of the abuse, including false flags on themselves. http://deepfreeze.it/
  Third party trolls playing both sides also played a roll.
  The vast majority of anyone claiming to be pro-gamergate who behaved badly was using a brand-new account, thus could be written off as a sockpuppet by the aforementioned anti-gamergate side or third party trolls.
  Any time a pro-gamergater did act badly, suspected sock puppet or not, that individual was ostracized extremely quickly.
90. Re:Who said what? by drinkypoo · 2016-09-28 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  If you actually believe pro-gamergaters were acting badly en masse, then all I have to ask you is what flavor was the koolaid?
  But that's my point. I don't think that either side was acting badly en masse.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
91. Re:Who said what? by Hylandr · 2016-09-28 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  rape allegviction costing you your career
  Mod up. All it takes is allegations of rape or racism or the latest ism of the day.
  In once cit-able case a woman was at a pool party that was crashed by black teens. They found her on Facebook, and even though she was only there, and had no part in any racist activity she was identifiable. They found her employer, made false allegations and she lost her job. That's SJWs these days. I did a little tracing of my own and found groups dedicated to destroying people's lives through FB.
  
  --
  ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
92. Re:Who said what? by myowntrueself · 2016-09-28 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Said 'Hate Meter' can even have a tattooing unit built into the inner surface where it meets the skin of the forehead.
  Then it can be simply placed on the candidate and it will automatically brand 'hater' on their forehead after the measurement cycle is complete, and can be moved to the head of the next candidate.
  Because, that's what people who use the phrase 'hater' to label other people want.
  This is going to escalate fast, because of all the people who now hate the haters...
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
93. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  Or: not everybody is you
94. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 10:49 · Score: 0
  
  If someone disagrees with you on one issue, they must disagree on all and therefore be racist misogynist bigotted monster.
  I think your virtue signal misfired there, buddy.
95. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 12:38 · Score: 0
  
  People who throw around the label "SJW" (ironically or not) are deeply invested in this empty culture war. You can't claim to be a reasonable adult when you are one half of a meaningless conflict.
96. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 13:59 · Score: 0
  
  Meanwhile, if you're fired because your employer feels it's the only way to get the SJWs to leave them alone...
  It's your own fault for being a white cishet male. Even if you spend the rest of your life atoning for these factors entirely outside your control then you're still a shitlord hatemonger and the world would be better off without you.
97. Re:Who said what? by Gussington · 2016-09-28 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  That's your opinion...
98. Re:Who said what? by Hylandr · 2016-09-28 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  SJW version of Justice leaves no room for Liberty.
  
  --
  ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
99. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 21:32 · Score: 0
  
  "As opposed to the blind eyes to the atrocities committed by the death cult living in Palestine?"
  By "death cult" I assume that you mean the homeless, hungry stone-throwing peasants whose homes have been bulldozed down and their children and families murdered in cold blood by the deceitful invading sociopathic Zionsts?
  "Subhuman occupants"
  Go cheer lead your terrorist buddies somewhere else asshole.
100. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 21:38 · Score: 0
  
  You got that right!
101. Re:Who said what? by Hognoxious · 2016-09-29 00:09 · Score: 1
  
  This and similar stories get up voted in the firehose. Not by "SJWs" or whatever, by people who want to have an angry rant about it.
  
  Do you have any actual proof of that?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
102. Re:Who said what? by Hognoxious · 2016-09-29 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  If you saw a flag with swastikas on it in the context of a Hindu temple what would you think? Assuming you thought at all...
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
103. Re: Who said what? by GustavoLopez · 2016-09-29 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's ridiculous
104. Re: Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-29 00:59 · Score: 0
  
  So much this!
105. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-29 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  Sources? (reliable ones - not stormfront type sites).
  That is 100% true. Just do some research.
106. Re:Who said what? by lsatenstein · 2016-09-29 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind that this is exactly what the left keep pushing with their "hate crime" laws, and wanting to implement kangaroo courts for them. We have them in Canada, they're abused. Up until Ezra Levant and Mark Styen won they had a 100% conviction rate. The head of the CHRC was also found to have been deliberately planting evidence against his political enemies then running them against the system to ruin them.
  You guys in the US have gotten your first taste of it, it's called a Title IX tribunal.
  The ADL is there to stop people from calling you a fucking prick. We know you are not. Whoops, my mistake, it is when you do say and do repulsive things against a community-- when you use the gestures and languages and analogies that are despicable. And of course, if the act against a group (even groups of 1 person) are against the law, they may bring a legal suit. Frivolous actions may border on "the despicable". You know, Donald Trumpisms are an example. He just enjoys providing insults to all who compete with him.
  
  --
  Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
107. Re:Who said what? by AmiMoJo · 2016-09-29 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Sometimes they make the mistake of commenting on the story. I don't know why those guys always make the same mistake of announcing their nefarious plans in public.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
108. Re:Who said what? by lsatenstein · 2016-09-29 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind that this is exactly what the left keep pushing with their "hate crime" laws, and wanting to implement kangaroo courts for them. We have them in Canada, they're abused. Up until Ezra Levant and Mark Styen won they had a 100% conviction rate. The head of the CHRC was also found to have been deliberately planting evidence against his political enemies then running them against the system to ruin them.
  You guys in the US have gotten your first taste of it, it's called a Title IX tribunal.
  CHRC is a government body, not an individual. Its there to insure that your human rights are not trampled upon.
  
  --
  Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
109. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-29 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  All white people are fucking nazis that want nothing more than to kill minorities and subjugate women.
110. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-29 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  So where is this proof?
111. Re:Who said what? by BronsCon · 2016-09-29 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  It is important to be able to identify people who should be avoided. What better term is there to apply to them than the one they choose for themselves?
  
  I'm not invested in it at all; I'm interested in staying out of it. In order to do so, however, I must know what an SJW is and how to identify them so that I can avoid them.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
112. Re:Who said what? by BronsCon · 2016-09-29 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  While I know your comment was meant to be sarcastic (and I hope you get a funny mod or two for it), I really do wonder what would happen if every white person (regardless of gender or orientation) in the world stopped working for a week. Every male (regardless of race or orientation) for an additional week, then every cisgender (regardless of race, physical gender, or orientation) for another week, and every heterosexual (regardless of the other factors, as well) for yet another week.
  
  That is, for each of those labels (white, cisgender, hetero, male) that applies to you, you take a week off. I wonder how we'd be valued then.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
113. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-29 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  Found the vegan!
114. Re:Who said what? by Hognoxious · 2016-09-29 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Provide citation/links where they "make the mistake of commenting on the story" or of them "announcing their nefarious plans in public".
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
115. Re:Who said what? by Mashiki · 2016-09-30 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  CHRC is a government body, not an individual. Its there to insure that your human rights are not trampled upon.
  It doesn't work like that in reality. Take a look at the previous head of the CHRC who went after his political enemies, and was one of the main reasons why S.13 was revoked.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
116. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-02 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and I'll be glad to mail you a hankie. A nice ping one to go with your politics.
117. Re:Who said what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 13:08 · Score: 0
  
  You can't ... so just virtually suck his dick instead. Oh soz, you just did!
We live in that environment now. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 12:49 · Score: 0, Flamebait

It a the backlash against the SJWs and PC Nazis.
If it's a free country, then they have a right to be a bigot and racist. Free speech applies to everyone. Just don't feel like a victim if someone has a problem with it.
1. Re: We live in that environment now. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  You're racist!!!!!
2. Re:We live in that environment now. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-09-27 13:30 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  What's worse, PC Nazis or Mac Communists?
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
3. Re:We live in that environment now. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:51 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Watt about the grammer Nazi's?
4. Re:We live in that environment now. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 14:51 · Score: 0
  
  > Trump voters are not racist -- they are
  And troll....
5. Re:We live in that environment now. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 14:58 · Score: 0
  
  nothing like a bigot trying to pretend that they are the victim. face it, everyone knows you for what you are. Insulting their intelligence does nothing but waste everyone's time.
6. Re:We live in that environment now. by Z80a · 2016-09-27 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  SJWs are a very specific group of indoctrinated individuals, rather than "every clinton supporter" (that are in majority just people that don't want to vote for trump, as most trump supporters are just people that don't want to vote for hillary).
  But yes, they're racist as hell, and not due "being racist against white people", but by basically boiling everyone down by race and gender.
  Everything you did personally, your opinions, it's all irrelevant to an extreme to those people, and they will either excessively "protect" you or just plain toss you under the bus, depending on how well you are ranked on the oppression stack.
7. Re:We live in that environment now. by KiloByte · 2016-09-27 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  SJWs are a very specific group of indoctrinated individuals, rather than "every clinton supporter" (that are in majority just people that don't want to vote for trump, as most trump supporters are just people that don't want to vote for hillary).
  True, this election most Americans are trying to find a way to vote against what they perceive as bigger evil. And let's face it, between the two real candidates there's no lesser evil.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
8. Re:We live in that environment now. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 15:29 · Score: 0
  
  Watt about the grammer Nazi's?
  Grammar Nazis.
9. Re:We live in that environment now. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 15:32 · Score: 0
  
  Hard to say... Both are homoerotic...
10. Re: We live in that environment now. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 15:33 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously? You guys aren't even aware of the irony in your positions? What morons.
11. Re:We live in that environment now. by Z80a · 2016-09-27 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's an ICBM being shot against US, and the only choices being letting it hit washington or forcing it to fall into NY instead.
12. Re: We live in that environment now. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 16:09 · Score: 0
  
  If we're serious, there's only one candidate who will let the nukes fly.
13. Re:We live in that environment now. by Hylandr · 2016-09-27 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  If the media overlords would let the populace realize there's more than two 'parties' this would be a non-issue.
  
  --
  ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
14. Re: We live in that environment now. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 16:17 · Score: 0
  
  you fell for the marxist propaganda. cheers.
15. Re: We live in that environment now. by Z80a · 2016-09-27 16:17 · Score: 1
  
  I can see both doing it, but for completely different reasons.
16. Re:We live in that environment now. by lindseyp · 2016-09-27 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  The PC Master Race, or the Chosen Mac Users.
  
  --
  j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
17. Re: We live in that environment now. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 17:47 · Score: 0
  
  The one who voted to invade Iraq?
18. Re:We live in that environment now. by ravenshrike · 2016-09-27 17:48 · Score: 1
  
  While there may not be a bigger evil, only one of the evils will have the entire bureaucracy and a bit under 50% of the legislative wing actively assisting them because they like the evil.
19. Re:We live in that environment now. by KiloByte · 2016-09-27 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  In a first-past-the-post system, if there's a big gap towards the 3rd candidate, voting for him instead of a lesser evil is a wasted vote. All you do is send a message that'll be ignored by most, it's for all practical purposes an "abstain" vote.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
20. Re: We live in that environment now. by Opportunist · 2016-09-27 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  Put it on the label pile back there, I ignore it later.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
21. Re:We live in that environment now. by Opportunist · 2016-09-27 18:03 · Score: 1
  
  There isn't even two.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
22. Re:We live in that environment now. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 19:10 · Score: 0
  
  They're the same. Horseshoe theory, man.
23. Re:We live in that environment now. by stealth_finger · 2016-09-27 20:00 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Watt about the grammer Nazi's?
  Grammar Nazis.
  There ok.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
24. Re:We live in that environment now. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 20:09 · Score: 0
  
  LINSOC.
25. Re:We live in that environment now. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 22:16 · Score: 0
  
  You mean macfags?
26. Re:We live in that environment now. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 00:48 · Score: 0
  
  I think we can all agree that Linux Libertarians are best.
27. Re:We live in that environment now. by Hognoxious · 2016-09-28 02:56 · Score: 2
  
  Watt about the grammer Nazi's?
  All they care about is power.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
28. Re:We live in that environment now. by Dread_ed · 2016-09-28 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  I think we can all safely say they pale in comparison to audiophiles...{shudder}
  
  --
  When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
29. Re:We live in that environment now. by Dread_ed · 2016-09-28 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  There are only two parties. The voters (electorate) and the people who get elected. Any other viewpoint turns you into a tool of the elected.
  
  --
  When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
30. Re:We live in that environment now. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  Watt about the grammer Nazi's?
  Grammar Nazis.
  Is that a sentence? Please diagram it for me.
31. Re:We live in that environment now. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  This is defeatist BS which does not even address the issue raised by the parent of how very little publicity is given to other parties by media.
32. Re:We live in that environment now. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  I heard you're idea's and their definately good.
33. Re:We live in that environment now. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  Mod parent up
34. Re:We live in that environment now. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 19:59 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is, that just perpetuates the "wasted vote" idea. I agree it's something ignored by most, and is effectively an abstain... but only if a few people do it.
  I'm over in the UK and we have poor voter turnout, partly because the FPTP system means most people's votes don't count. There's no point voting for an alternative in a safe seat, because the gap is so big. Yet you look at the voter turnout and realise if all the non-voters bothered to show up, they *could* change the result significantly. Since the last general election, the public are more aware now of how badly skewed the results are to the two main parties (and the SNP in Scotland), simply because it was such a stark contrast: the SNP took almost every seat in Scotland with just 50% of the votes north of the border, UKIP (much as I'm not a fan of them) came third in terms of votes yet have just one seat out of 650, LibDems reduced massively, Greens with one MP. It was such a ridiculously out-of-proportion result that people sat up and took notice for once. Change is finally starting to happen, but we've still got a long way.
  From what I've seen and heard over here: Gary Johnson is proving popular in the sense that a lot of people like him, like his ideas and honesty, and see him as a better choice than Trump or Clinton (as well as being a great way to kick the political duopoly), or at least a credible candidate to put pressure on Trump and Clinton. Yet almost no one wants to actually vote for him because they're worried he won't win. Well, of course he won't if people think that way. You all in the US have been dealt what looks like a crappy hand, but you've got what seems to be a one-shot chance to make a difference by either electing a third party candidate, or bringing one into serious contention with the duopoly.
Racist? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 12:50 · Score: 0

Wait, I thought everyone was racist now?
1. Re:Racist? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:25 · Score: 0
  
  Only white people.
2. Re: Racist? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:53 · Score: 0
  
  Race isn't even a biological concept. It's completely social. No wonder it has been so hard to eradicate.
3. Re:Racist? by Darinbob · 2016-09-27 14:20 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Everyone's a little bit lacist.
4. Re:Racist? by ShanghaiBill · 2016-09-27 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone's a little bit lacist.
  We are born that way. By the time my daughter was 20 months old she would speak English to white or black people and Mandarin to Asian people. I never taught her that. She figured it out on her own.
5. Re: Racist? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 16:18 · Score: 0
  
  only old white men who built real things which actually work. they must be replaced by oppressed brown and supercheap labour. living in one bedroom as a gang of 7.
6. Re: Racist? by sexconker · 2016-09-27 16:34 · Score: 0
  
  If that were true two people of a given race would produce a child of a different race.
7. Re: Racist? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 17:42 · Score: 0
  
  You mean the guys that fuck your wife?
8. Re: Racist? by undefinedreference · 2016-09-27 21:18 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The AC is right. That you can intentionally select for traits is irrelevant. Race is a social construct. If you don't believe me, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics
  We're all Homo sapiens sapiens. A tiny handful of genes that affect outward appearance are irrelevant. The fact people cling to such outdated garbage is depressing.
9. Re: Racist? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 22:40 · Score: 0
  
  "Breed is a social construct" said the rottie to the chihuahua.
10. Re:Racist? by cyberchondriac · 2016-09-28 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  In what way is that "racist"??
  So the mere acknowledgment that humans are of different races ,cultures, and languages is racist now? In what way did her assumption that an asian person might actually speak an asian language imply the superiority or inferiority of said asians? Or white/black people? Because that's what racism is, believing that a race is superior or inferior in some manner to other races. Racism in practice is treating a person worse or better than another, solely on the basis of their race.
  Sounds to me like she was thoughtfully trying to accommodate the asian person.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
11. Re: Racist? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  No, he's black.
12. Re: Racist? by sexconker · 2016-09-28 03:43 · Score: 2
  
  Dumbassery like yours is a social construct.
  A tiny handful of genes separate us from chimps. Slight changes have huge effects, and those effects are not just related to appearance. If people like you had your fucking way people wouldn't be allowed to ask about race and people would die due to genetic conditions that affect different races more/less.
  Fuck your feelings, deal with facts.
Pepe is a scam by mschuyler · 2016-09-27 12:51 · Score: 1

The whole thing is fake. It's a fake meme. It has nothing to do with the alt-right. Clinton's campaign site was pwnd and they bought off on it.

--
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
1. Re:Pepe is a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No, it's a real meme: Feels good man. (Feels bad man is an obvious spin-off.)
  The Nazi connection? That's a 100% bullshit joke that Clinton swallowed hook, line, and sinker. She got trolled by 4chan, and HARD, to fall for that. Except that as far as anyone can tell, 4chan never did any "Nazi frog" meme. No one can really figure out where the hell she got that from. It just doesn't exist.
  There is no Pepe/Nazi connection. There never has been, except in Hillary's weird deluded "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" pnemonia-addled mind.
2. Re:Pepe is a scam by msauve · 2016-09-27 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  The linked article is completely worthless without pics.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
3. Re:Pepe is a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:17 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The Daily Beast - which "Broke" the pepe story (sourced by a 15 year old joker on twitter, with no political leanings) is owned by IAC publishing.
  Who is on the board of directors of IAC publishing? Chelsea Clinton.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAC_(company)
  If modern racism is cartoon frogs then maybe time to move on guys.
4. Re:Pepe is a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:26 · Score: 0
  
  If modern racism is cartoon frogs then maybe time to move on guys.
  Racists can't move on. They still believe Lee was a traitor, that the Jews stabbed them in the back, and that it's Obama's fault they're so outraged.
5. Re:Pepe is a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:29 · Score: 0
  
  Bah, forced meme is forced.
6. Re:Pepe is a scam by alvinrod · 2016-09-27 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  I think the association comes for Trump supporters using the meme to shitpost on the internet and using it in conjunction with Trump talking points or Trump memes (e.g. building a wall, etc.) and eventually some of Trump's campaign starting to use it, though whether they really understood what it was or why people were using it is another question entirely. I can kind of see where the thinking came from, but it's pretty fucking stupid and I have to believe 4chan is probably responsible for trolling some reporter who doesn't have a clue, otherwise it's just some clickbait-level journalism that went viral itself and no one wants to back down because they think they'd look more stupid than if they just kept pushing it.
7. Re:Pepe is a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:42 · Score: 0
  
  Ah yes that explains why they draw a cartoon frog taking a comfy whiz with his bare ass hanging out
  makes sense now
8. Re:Pepe is a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:42 · Score: 0
  
  Is blackface acting a form of racism? Is blackface stereotyping in a cartoon a form of racism? Is a cartoon that portrays a racial superiority to others a form of racism? Racism in cartoons were certainly a thing in recorded history and it's still a thing today with Pepe. The only news here is that the racist shit posting that was relatively confined to their communities are now publicized as something in the mainstream media.
9. Re:Pepe is a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 14:31 · Score: 0
  
  100% into witchhunt territory. Shame, blame, tie them to the stake and set it alight. Facts be damned, we have an enemy to fight!
10. Re:Pepe is a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 14:38 · Score: 0
  
  You wish. They can't sit back and coopt the meme for years and then turn around and "OMG you got so trolled" when someone points out that the meme is a favorite with racist /pol/ bathers.
11. Re: Pepe is a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 14:46 · Score: 0
  
  Adolf Ziegler is dead, what are you going to do? Clone his brain and transplant it into a robot body and give him a Wacom tablet?
  Seriously, you should do that. It would be awesome. I would totally buy that art.
12. Re: Pepe is a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 16:39 · Score: 0
  
  Chelsea Clinton you say? Of course, now it all makes sense!! The Clintons, Pepe the Frog and neo-Nazis! The whole vast SJW conspiracy laid out before me like a goddamn blueprint*. How could I have been so blind?
  * redprint, whatever
13. Re: Pepe is a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 18:22 · Score: 0
  
  You must stay off of pol if you haven't seen em.
14. Re:Pepe is a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 18:24 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is that everybody uses every meme for everything.
15. Re:Pepe is a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 21:51 · Score: 0
  
  Well there are Hitler and other Nazi variations of the meme, just like there are versions where Pepe is al little girl. It's a meme, ffs.
16. Re:Pepe is a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 23:59 · Score: 0
  
  HOW THE FUCK is Chelsea Clinton on the board of anything?
17. Re:Pepe is a scam by norweeg · 2016-09-28 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  have you ever stopped to think that, while you and some 4channers might think it is a joke, that a lot of the others are actually dead serious and that your "joke" is emboldening the white nationalist movement? Even David Duke tweeted out a Pepe.
18. Re:Pepe is a scam by chihowa · 2016-09-28 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  HOW THE FUCK is Chelsea Clinton on the board of anything?
  Are you serious? She's on the board of anything for the exact same reason that anybody is on the board if anything. How did you think that people got on these boards?
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
19. Re:Pepe is a scam by Rakarra · 2016-09-28 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Are you serious? She's on the board of anything for the exact same reason that anybody is on the board if anything.
  
  With many public companies, the board is elected by shareholders..
20. Re:Pepe is a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  I heard that Pepe gives rainbow parties!
21. Re:Pepe is a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 12:37 · Score: 0
  
  have you ever stopped to think that, while you and some 4channers might think it is a joke, that a lot of the others are actually dead serious and that your "joke" is emboldening the white nationalist movement? Even David Duke tweeted out a Pepe.
  Yes.
  I'm sure that's primarily caused by a bunch of channers taking the piss, not mass media shitting dozens of "Pepe is a racist symbol" clickbait articles all over the place. /s
22. Re: Pepe is a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 19:11 · Score: 0
  
  Please explain to me how Pepe is a racial stereotype.
23. Re:Pepe is a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-29 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  have you ever stopped to think that, while you and some 4channers might think it is a joke, that a lot of the others are actually dead serious and that your "joke" is emboldening the white nationalist movement? Even David Duke tweeted out a Pepe.
  I heard Hitler painted a landscape once. That's why pictures of trees and rivers are symbols of oppression to this day.
Kermit Be Damned!!! by zenlessyank · 2016-09-27 12:54 · Score: 1

ribbit
1. Re:Kermit Be Damned!!! by PPH · 2016-09-27 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  Reeeeeee!
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
2. Re:Kermit Be Damned!!! by Mashiki · 2016-09-27 18:56 · Score: 1
  
  I was expecting this...
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
What is this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 12:55 · Score: 0

The ADL can suck a D.
Making something a hate symbol just because of a bunch of ignoramus appropriated it for themselves... This is the swastika all over again.
1. Re:What is this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 12:58 · Score: 0
  
  A WHOLE D?!
2. Re:What is this... by Scarletdown · 2016-09-27 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, back in the day with the Clintons, it was Monica and other interns that were sucking the big D because Hillary would not. :)
  Not Milk?
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
3. Re:What is this... by MachineShedFred · 2016-09-27 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  Especially when you have an anti-hate group declare it to be a "hate symbol" which basically cedes the ground and lets the anti-semites win.
  If it's even a thing, which I doubt it is.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
4. Re:What is this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:35 · Score: 0
  
  so if i started composing fumetti of iphones spouting racist slogans, would they declare the iphone a hate symbol?
  i mean, more than it already is?
5. Re:What is this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 14:05 · Score: 0
  
  Google up "nazi spongebob" and see a bunch of altered images. Do they flag Spongebob as symbol of hate now?
  Idiots at the ADL. Yet another org that completely discredits themselves by flying off the handle over insignificant shit.
6. Re:What is this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 15:35 · Score: 0
  
  This is the swastika all over again.
  Make swastika great again.
7. Re: What is this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 16:24 · Score: 0
  
  sure communist. hitler just repeated what your ilk did in russia years before.
  and trump has something to do with hitler because you marxists and your bankster paymasters say so ????
8. Re:What is this... by Opportunist · 2016-09-27 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  No, Spongebob is saved by a variant of the Cute cat theory of digital activism.
  Said theory says that you cannot outlaw a medium that is used by dissenting parties once it has been adopted by the masses to look at cute cats, because then the outcry would be too big and people would notice that you're the bully. In this case, people have already learned that Spongebob is a cute cartoon and labeling him a Nazi symbol would show the public that you're full of shit and have no idea what you're talking about.
  But as long as it's just a rather obscure internet meme that only an "in-circle" of people knows about, you're fine.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
9. Re:What is this... by myowntrueself · 2016-09-28 03:20 · Score: 2
  
  Especially when you have an anti-hate group declare it to be a "hate symbol" which basically cedes the ground and lets the anti-semites win.
  If it's even a thing, which I doubt it is.
  Well Hitler was a vegetarian. So therefore vegetarianism is anti-semitic, right?
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
i hate it by turkeydance · 2016-09-27 13:01 · Score: 2

when a hate group makes a hate symbol to make anti-hate groups hate the symbol
Time got trolled by sinij · 2016-09-27 13:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

The only logical explanation is that Time got trolled. I certainly don't recall reading anything about Hitler or Third Reich using frog symbols.
1. Re:Time got trolled by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  You've got it backwards. The frog symbols was a normal meme that started to go mainstream. The original users didn't like their special meme being used by others, so they spammed the meme with lots of hate speech in an attempt to kill it and get back at any of the mainstream users. They apparently were successful since now anyone using is seen to be supporting hate.
  Hitler didn't use frog symbols, the frog symbol used Hitler to taint itself.
2. Re:Time got trolled by T.E.D. · 2016-09-28 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  The only logical explanation is that Time got trolled. I certainly don't recall reading anything about Hitler or Third Reich using frog symbols
  You haven't been reading through trending hashtags on twitter then. This shit's real, regardless of who is reporting on it.
3. Re:Time got trolled by meta-monkey · 2016-09-28 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  No it's not. It's a bunch of shitposters from 4chan laughing their asses off at the media losing their shit over "LE NAZI FROG!!!" so they're making more Nazi frogs. /r9k/ was trying to "take Pepe back from the normies" by making gore and pee-pee poo-poo Pepes ever since Katy Perry posted one. That didn't work, but Nazi stuff did. Exceedingly few of the frogposters are in fact Nazis.
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
4. Re:Time got trolled by nitehawk214 · 2016-09-28 03:00 · Score: 2
  
  The only logical explanation is that Time got trolled. I certainly don't recall reading anything about Hitler or Third Reich using frog symbols.
  Nazi frog symbols?
  What about the Vichy French? :)
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:16 · Score: 0

Hitler-like mustache, wearing a yarmulke or a Klan hood, have proliferated in recent weeks in hateful messages aimed at Jewish
That doesn't make any sense. Is the frog here the person writing the message, as in "what the frog says", or is the purpose of the message to suggest that Jewish love the Klan and Hitler, while being frog-like?
1. Re:I don't get it by myowntrueself · 2016-09-28 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Hitler-like mustache, wearing a yarmulke or a Klan hood, have proliferated in recent weeks in hateful messages aimed at Jewish
  That doesn't make any sense. Is the frog here the person writing the message, as in "what the frog says", or is the purpose of the message to suggest that Jewish love the Klan and Hitler, while being frog-like?
  Dude, frogs are a race!
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
#FeelsBadMan by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:21 · Score: 0

Oh the feels, the fake campaign feels
The right way to counter it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:23 · Score: 0

Obviously, is to use the same Pepe character in campaigns that are diametrically opposed in spirit to the hate groups.
It's like the time some genius in Australia decided to blare Barry Manilow music over the loudspeakers, to clear out a gang of punks who used to hang out on their property late at night.
If I put a racist slogans on the ADL logo by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:31 · Score: 0

Does this mean ADL is racist?
Not really a hate symbol by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-09-27 13:32 · Score: 1

It's not a hate symbol per se, but some racist fuckholes use it as one. There's a difference.
If I used, I dunno, the "recycle" symbol as a hate symbol, would that make it a hate symbol? No, it would just be some arsehole (me) using it that way.
But, I suppose with enough usage it would start to be recognized as such and then, yeah, it could probably be considered a hate symbol.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
1. Re:Not really a hate symbol by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:59 · Score: 0
  
  Wait till Operation Google gets more traction. The keks will flow when the ADL adds "Skype" and "Google" as hate terms to their database.
2. Re:Not really a hate symbol by judoguy · 2016-09-28 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  I know man, right? Along with "and" and "the" and "is", etc. Those racist bastards all use that language in their hate filled diatribes!
  
  --
  Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
3. Re:Not really a hate symbol by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-09-28 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Along with "and" and "the" and "is", etc.
  Now you done gone and triggered me, you white, cis-male shitlord!
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Pepe? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:35 · Score: 0

O shit watsup?
Welp, now we know for sure. by jafiwam · 2016-09-27 13:37 · Score: 1, Informative

Now we know the level of dumb the new Slashdot management is.
Or just another chink in the chain of media bullshit controlled by garbage in control.
1. Re:Welp, now we know for sure. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 04:30 · Score: 0
  
  [...] chink [...]
  Triggered!!!!! /s
  Edit: Yes of course it's 'like' yelling, caps filter, because I WAS YELLING.
2. Re:Welp, now we know for sure. by Verdatum · 2016-09-28 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  It's perfectly reasonable to share this story; it relates to that nebulous concept known as Internet culture, and how it is perceived by society. You're welcome to think that the story is inane, but it's still good to know that it exists as a news item.
Counterproductive by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:43 · Score: 0

As sympathetic as I am to the ADL and their cause, this is foolish. Pepe became co-opted by online trolls the moment ADL and Time declared it so. They are the ones who gave the "alt-right" legitimacy, and in doing so are raking entire online communities through the mud while encouraging trolls to grab for more.
This isn't a defamation or hate issue, this is an issue of one group trying to micromanage another group's speech on the internet, and they're pushing back hard. It's futile and counterproductive.
OT: another Clinton troll - "IS IS" by NotQuiteReal · 2016-09-27 13:56 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Yeah, in the debate last night, everyone thinks Trump made a mistake when he said Hillary has been "fighting ISIS her entire adult life".

Obviously ISIS hasn't been around that long, but the inside joke is that he didn't mean ISIS, he was referring to a certain guy who asked "what the meaning of IS IS".

lol

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
1. Re:OT: another Clinton troll - "IS IS" by Wycliffe · 2016-09-27 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, in the debate last night, everyone thinks Trump made a mistake when he said Hillary has been "fighting ISIS her entire adult life".
  Trump says plenty of stupid things. The left is hurting itself when it jumps on Trump for slight mishaps like this. If he would have said "terrorists" or even "islamic terrorists"
  then he would be pretty much correct and everyone knows it. When people think they are smarter than everyone else and jump on Trump for a slight mishap like this the
  only thing it does is drive his supporters to support him harder and ignore all the real problems with the things he says.
  Unlike most candidates, pounding on his minor slip ups just makes him stronger and hides his real shortcomings behind a shield of "the establishment is out to get him"
2. Re:OT: another Clinton troll - "IS IS" by naturjunge · 2016-09-27 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  The old "not ignorant, trolling" defense.
3. Re: OT: another Clinton troll - "IS IS" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  If he would have said "terrorists" or even "islamic terrorists" then he would be pretty much correct and everyone knows it.
  
  Nope, for three reasons. One, Hillary Clinton was born in 1946, so her adult life would be in the 1960s, but only arguably had involvement in international affairs when she became first lady in the nineties. First Lady of Arkansas has little to do with politics. So after her husband became President woild be its start. Even then, her involvement would be minimal as she focused on domestic affairs, and after 2000, she was only a senator. And not a senior one with tons of influence, or in the majority party. After that, for eight more years, somebody else was in charge. Then we have another window where she was Secretary of State and had influence. So maybe 12 years out of 40 where she was able to do much.
  Furthermore, given that the politics of the Mid-East have been a mess for the West for the past century or two (I might or might not count the Napoleon business, but from post-WWI at the latest anyway), and even through her life gone through a lot of manifestations. Can I blame her for the conflict over Palestine? No. For the Iranian Revolution? No. For the Iran-Iraq war? No. For Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait? No. For the US not toppling Hussein the first time? Nope. For former US ally Osama Bin Laden deciding that he was pissed off at the US now? Nope. For all the shit in Lebanon? Nope. For all the various Mid-East Dictators we propped up? Nope. I will givd her credit for the Arab Spring though. Let them know that they are at risk, it isn't like Qaddafi or Mubarak were friendly. Neither is Assad. So ISIS is a bother, so what? That should just teach everyone else to stop being shits and fall in line.
  But the most telling reason is that Donald Trump should have known what he was saying and expressed himself clearly and precisely. Especially since he claims to be able to solve it, because apparently he's great and awesome. Yet he can't get his message right? He should take the time to learn how to present a clear and coherent message himself, not a muddled picture that you have to reinterpret. It's one thing to make the occasional mistake. It's beyond irresponsible to do it as much as Trump manages.
  Really, I'd have respected an earnest statement of concern for the long-standing issues of the Middle East. A desire to resolve them. But instead we get a misguided attack statement combined with what seems to be an arrogant bit of self-proclaimed ability to resolve it. If he's that awesome, what's stopping him now?
  So your defense, actually reveals that Trump is still a poor choice.
  But heck, apparently he thinks "law and order" is the cure for a...crime wave that he claims is happening. Which it isn't.
4. Re:OT: another Clinton troll - "IS IS" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 16:56 · Score: 0
  
  The left is hurting itself when it jumps on Trump for slight mishaps like this.
  I'm not "left"... look, you're correct. But the flip side is that actual wars have probably started due to exactly this kind of "minor slip up". Can you think of an effective way to point that out to his supporters?
5. Re:OT: another Clinton troll - "IS IS" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 17:01 · Score: 0
  
  > only thing it does is drive his supporters to support him harder and ignore all the real problems with the things he says.
  Big deal. His supporters aren't going to leave him no matter what. They've already decided that a racist is better than a liberal. A stupid racist is still better than a liberal.
  Jumping on him for saying stupid shit is about the people on the fence. Who knows what will sway them, but pointing out that the man who literally claimed to have "the best words" can't keep focused enough to distinguish between ISIS and any other terrorists is definitely not going to help Trump with them.
6. Re:OT: another Clinton troll - "IS IS" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 17:11 · Score: 0
  
  Intermediate System to Intermediate System - Developed by DEC... which was consumed by Compaq... which was consumed by HP... whose late CEO failed at her bid for presidency.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS-IS
  Take that conspiracy theorists!
7. Re: OT: another Clinton troll - "IS IS" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 17:35 · Score: 0
  
  The answer is more bombs.
8. Re:OT: another Clinton troll - "IS IS" by ArylAkamov · 2016-09-27 20:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This.
  It's like how everybody forgot where that "bowl of skittles" meme Trump Jr. posted came from. It was originally a feminist argument for why all men are monsters/rapists.
  Pretty good troll, considering the reaction it got.
9. Re:OT: another Clinton troll - "IS IS" by cyberchondriac · 2016-09-28 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  I took it that he was surreptitiously busting on her, saying she's only been an "adult" for the past 4 years. I chuckled.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
10. Re:OT: another Clinton troll - "IS IS" by AmiMoJo · 2016-09-28 03:53 · Score: 2
  
  No, the "bowl of skittles" thing originates from a Nazi children's book about Jews.
  A few years back there was a Ben Grelle posted the skittles version as part of a blog post in the wake of the Elliot Rodger misogynist murder spree. He claims it was taken out of context, it's up to you if you believe him but given that it was a response to what Rodger did his explanation seems reasonable.
  How did you get from "10% of them are poison" to "all men are rapists"? At most you could say he was suggesting that 10% of men are rapists.
  And by the way, the origin of the "all men are rapists" thing is a play. In the story the mother of a woman who was raped says the line, but her daughter then strongly disagrees despite what happened to her. So in fact, even the originator of the quote (the author of the play) was saying the exact opposite of what people now imply.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
11. Re:OT: another Clinton troll - "IS IS" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  > It was originally a feminist argument for why all men are monsters/rapists.
  It was originally a feminist argument about trusting the powerful to protect the weak.
  And then it was turned around to make an argument about distrusting the weak.
  Who would have guessed that complexity would be lost on the willfully ignorant?
12. Re:OT: another Clinton troll - "IS IS" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  Because if there is one thing that is true about Trump, its that he's subtle.
13. Re:OT: another Clinton troll - "IS IS" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  So wait. Men are the powerful, and women and brown people are the weak?
The answer to free speech is more free speech by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:58 · Score: 0

The answer is neither censorship, nor giving into the the hateful usurpers. Fight BAC with free speech using Pepe in a good light.
Symbols by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 14:00 · Score: 0

Surely the Hitler mustache and the Klan outfit are the symbols of hate here. You can add them to anything.
1. Re:Symbols by zephvark · 2016-09-27 14:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yes! Let's start adding the Hitler mustache to Charlie Chaplin pictures. Bwa ha ha ha!
2. Re:Symbols by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 23:46 · Score: 0
  
  Or you could grab a frame from The Great Dictator.
Dear politicans. by Z80a · 2016-09-27 14:14 · Score: 1

Get off the internet and go actually work.
1. Re:Dear politicans. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 16:33 · Score: 0
  
  No, keep them on the internet, where they can't do any damage and the morons outclass them anyways. The ideal politician is one too busy to pass laws.
Next up: Michigan J. Frog by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 14:23 · Score: 0

We all know he's just a caricature of Al Jolson. Undoubtedly, that frog appeared in blackface at some point.
How about Jiang the Toad? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 14:26 · Score: 0

Too simple, sometimes naive.
Re:ADL is not adjusted to the internet age by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 14:26 · Score: 0

Oh looky, Slashdot has its own Joshua Ryne Goldberg!
Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by hsthompson69 · 2016-09-27 14:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

...and then we can declare that a hate symbol too?
What about the rainbow flag? If sharia enforcing islamists start using rainbow colors, can we declare that a hate symbol?
What about the word "HATE"? Can we declare that a hate symbol, and ban it?
WTF, guys, seriously?
1. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by hey! · 2016-09-27 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  You can declare anything you want a hate symbol. The question is whether you have the credibility for others to follow your lead.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
2. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by hsthompson69 · 2016-09-27 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  But doesn't that beg the question? Should anyone who proclaims certain words, shapes, or forms as "hate symbols" have any credibility at all?
3. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 15:52 · Score: 0
  
  ...and then we can declare that a hate symbol too?
  What about the rainbow flag? If sharia enforcing islamists start using rainbow colors, can we declare that a hate symbol?
  What about the word "HATE"? Can we declare that a hate symbol, and ban it?
  WTF, guys, seriously?
  If anything deserves to be declared a hate symbol, is "hate" itself, I'd think
4. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by hey! · 2016-09-27 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  Well, actually technically speaking you're the one begging the question: you haven't established that either you or I enjoy some kind of privileged position in which we get to condemn other people for condemning language they don't like.
  So by all means condemn them for calling things "hate speech", it's your right; but it's also their right.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
5. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by hsthompson69 · 2016-09-27 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  I was responding to your claim that the question was about "credibility", which is a premise I think requires proof - perhaps you didn't intend it, but your implication was that the ADL had credibility, and therefore was allowed the privileged position from which to condemn other people for language they don't like.
  If your position is that the ADL has no more right than anyone else to declare words, shapes, or forms "hate symbols", then we agree. If your position is that they have the credibility to make such declarations, I challenge the premise by asserting that anyone making such declarations isn't credible.
  Now, that does get into an interesting "is declaring something hate speech also hate speech which can be declared" infinite recursion, but I'd argue there is a qualitative difference between supporting censorship, and not supporting censorship. That is to say, I condemn them as stupid, which is different than them condemning others as hateful.
6. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 16:24 · Score: 0
  
  I always think of twitter trolls, 4chan, and Reddittors when I think of credible leadership. The ADL is right to be afraid of their hateful influence, VERY AFRAID!
7. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by hey! · 2016-09-27 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  My position is that anyone can have any opinion they want, and that the significance of that opinion to others depends on whatever level of trust the claimer can command. This puts some people in a de facto privileged position. This can be rational (e.g. privileging an oncologist's opinions on cancer over a layman's) and in other cases not (privileging a fellow mom's opinions about vaccines over an immunologist or toxicologist).
  So my point is that you CAN make any of the claims you suggested, but your authority won't carry much weight because you're just a random bloke on the Internet. You would have to make a convincing argument. However even then there are lots of very credible-sounding arguments out there that don't sound credible to someone who has actual knowledge.
  The bottom line is knowing the truth of any claim is quite difficult, particularly when it involves jargon. In general the judgment of someone who has spent some time studying an issue is more be trusted than what "stands to reason" in your own judgment. Even so, an expert should still be able to give a coherent defense of his positions.
  So in the case of this frog meme, I have no particular reason to doubt ADL; however if it were important to me I would look at the evidence ADL puts forward in justification of their position. I do not necessarily agree with ADL on everything (e.g. on Muslims displaying tokens bearing the Shahada), but they have more than any other group tracked violent extremist groups and their affiliates and therefore are in at least a position to compare and contrast the symbols used. If, however, it were an organization like Kahane Chai, I would feel no particular reason to look into their reasoning because they're a racist group. Life is simply to short to treat a source that is consistently nonsense as if it might be credible.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
8. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 17:16 · Score: 0
  
  You can declare anything you want a hate symbol. The question is whether you have the credibility for others to follow your lead.
  No, the question is, Do you have the financial backing and your people 'embedded' in the various media industries who are eager and willing to promote whatever insane fuckwittery you come out with this week?
  Credibility isn't a word I'd normally associate with these people.
  As to hate symbols...well, as part of our range of products we manufacture a number of items with Celtic/Nordic/Anglo-Saxon designs on them, designs taken from stone carvings, jewellery/other extant artefacts and Illuminated manuscripts. Apropos these items, we had representatives of a certain group bleating to us about promoting 'Nazi symbolism' to which our response was eh?, WTF!....sorry, but just no. These cultures, primarily Celtic and Nordic (Anglo-Saxon to a lesser extent) are part of our heritage, language, DNA (a somewhat less 'explosive' term than race) etc. 'our' being the people who actually hand-make these items. The designs are part of that, and fuck all to do with any Nazi/neo-whatever ideological symbolism BS.
  We asked them to provide documentary evidence that any of the designs on our products had been used, either historically by the Nazis or currently by the neo-nazis, in any way or form whatsoever...unsurprisingly, nothing was provided. At this point we politely informed them that if they insisted on making further baseless intimations of such connections then defamation is such a loaded word to play with..
  It would still be of minor interest to us as to *exactly* how and *why* we popped up on their radar in the first place. We're not that large an operation, for years we'd been making and selling these items 'locally' with nary a peep, then we started selling globally... ~6-8 months later cue the fun. I suppose some zealot somewhere out there is of the opinion that anything Celtic/Nordic looking is Nazi, ergo anyone selling the stuff is...
9. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by hsthompson69 · 2016-09-27 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  You make a compelling argument for religion - anyone who has spent time studying God more trusted than what "stands to reason" in your own judgement :)
  Now, if it was simply saying "hey, some hate groups use pepe the frog, and some hate groups use swastikas!", that's one thing. But it strains even the most basic credulity to assign such a thing as "hate" to a mere symbol, stretching the claim further to "any use of pepe the frog or swastikas means you're a hate group!", which, whether ADL intends it or not, is their end effect.
  To put it in the terms you used, it is irrational to give any sort of credibility to a group that proclaims words, shapes, or forms are so poisonous that the mere usage of them makes you hateful. There is incredible amount of context that is simply stripped out, that can have no rational justification.
  tl;dr - just because a racist black gang uses the #13 as their symbol, doesn't make every use of the #13 a racist act. We can describe racists groups in detail without ascribing their motives to any and every use of a symbol.
10. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by AmiMoJo · 2016-09-27 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  The ADL points out that Pepe is not a hate symbol, it is merely used in some neo-Nazi / white supremacist memes.
  Pays to check the primary source before posting reactionary nonsense.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
11. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by norweeg · 2016-09-28 00:46 · Score: 0
  
  So by your symbols that hark back to the holocaust or slavery and act as a banner for violence and/or discrimination != hate symbols but symbols that counter hate in a non-violent manner might just as well be hate symbols? That does not compute! Also can we stop pretending that sharia is something special? Why are we so concerned about islamic sharia when we show little regard for the homegrown christian crazies who want to institute biblical law? Fundamentalists are fundamentalists and are not representative of the whole.
12. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by hey! · 2016-09-28 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone who has spent time studying God is a better authority on theology. He's just another guy when it comes to physics.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
13. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by meta-monkey · 2016-09-28 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Kind of. I think you would find Nazis to be rather surprised about the frog. It's mainly just trolling the media. If you see someone posting a nazi frog on twitter, it's extremely unlikely they're actually a Nazi, it's just 4channers laughing their ass off at the media and Clinton campaign freaking out over a nazi cartoon frog. But they fed the trolls, so, what do you expect?
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
14. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by hsthompson69 · 2016-09-28 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  One might argue that spending time studying myths and legends might not grant as much authority as on may think :)
  Does someone who has read the bible for 60 years really know the mind of God any more than anyone else? :)
15. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by hsthompson69 · 2016-09-28 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  From their press release:
  
  The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today identified “Pepe the Frog,” a cartoon character used by haters on social media to suggest racist, anti-Semitic or other bigoted notions, as a hate symbol.
  Not sure how you assert they're not identifying it as a hate symbol, when they say they're identifying it as a hate symbol.
16. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by hsthompson69 · 2016-09-28 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing is a hate symbol. People can be hateful with anything.
  Name a single christian country that executes gays as a matter of law.
  https://www.washingtonpost.com...
  Homegrown christian crazies are crazy. Islamic countries under sharia are scary.
17. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by AmiMoJo · 2016-09-28 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Keep reading...
  
  Pepe the Frog did not originally have anti-Semitic connotations. But as the meme proliferated in online venues such as 4chan, 8chan and Reddit, a subset of memes came into existence promoting anti-Jewish, bigoted and offensive ideas.
  
  âoeOnce again, racists and haters have taken a popular Internet meme and twisted it for their own purposes of spreading bigotry and harassing users,â
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
18. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by hsthompson69 · 2016-09-28 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  How does that additional context materially affect their statement at all? If anything, they're claiming that it wasn't originally a hate symbol, but became one - which means anything, including the Star of David, could become a hate symbol if used in memes.
  When the skinheads start making AmiMoJo memes, will your name become a hate symbol too?
  Maybe if they had simply defined a subset of memes as hate symbols, rather than defaming poor Pepe, they'd be on firmer ground.
19. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by norweeg · 2016-09-28 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing is a hate symbol. People can be hateful with anything.
  Name a single christian country that executes gays as a matter of law.
  https://www.washingtonpost.com...
  It doesn't have to statutorily punishable by death for it to be unofficially punishable by death. http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/... http://www.thedailybeast.com/a... . Uganda is 85% christian.
20. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by hsthompson69 · 2016-09-28 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  So, you admit that the only countries that legally punish gays with death are those that ascribe to shariah?
  To be sure, any country moving in the direction of killing gays, christian or muslim, is moving in the wrong direction. But while you may find some support for all kinds of violence in the bible, and in a homophobic black country you may find ruthless, yet illegal violence against gays, it's the quran and it's shariah law that has actually made such barbarism legal in many muslim countries.
  In the end, we we decide which viruses to be concerned about, it matters if it's the common cold or ebola. One may, in rare instances, kill you. The other, only in rare instances will you survive.
21. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by norweeg · 2016-10-03 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  That's not even the point we're arguing. You're equating statutory and de facto capital punishment and attempting to equate that with Islam when in fact christian fundamentalists are just as guilty of enforcing it and trying to pass laws to allow it
22. Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... by hsthompson69 · 2016-10-03 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  You're making completely unsupported assertions. While we may agree that muslims who believe in sharia law and a small contingent of violent christian fundamentalists both want homosexuals dead, only in islamic countries has such behavior been made explicitly legal. You simply cannot put christian fundamentalists into the same bucket as sharia compliant muslims.
  If anything, I'm arguing a distinction between statutory capital punishment, and illegal murder, which you're trying to conflate as equivalent.
  Some statistics: https://www.jihadwatch.org/201...
  If anything, it seems that the star and crescent should be labeled as a hate symbol.
and the letter "S" by ooloorie · 2016-09-27 14:35 · Score: 1

But recently, as the Daily Beast reported in May, the character "S" has been co-opted by a faction of Internet denizens who decided to reclaim it from the mainstream, and began sharing it in anti-Semitic contexts. "Images of the letter "S", variously used in words like "sucks", "songbird", and "simple" have appeared in recent weeks in hateful messages aimed at Jewish and other users on Twitter," the ADL wrote in a statement. "Once again, racists and haters have taken a popular letter and twisted it for their own purposes of spreading bigotry and harassing users," wrote ADL CEO Jonathan A. Greenblatt.
There, FTFY.
This Is How They Raise Money by alternative_right · 2016-09-27 14:39 · Score: 1, Insightful

If you have a non-profit group whose goal is to save the whales, you raise money by writing about a new threat to whales every week and asking for donations afterwards.
The SPLC/ADL do the same thing, but with Nazis or anything that could possibly be argued to have one spoken to someone with a Nazi-like thought, because this is how they scare their readers into making more donations.
At this point, Nationalism -- the idea that a nation is defined by its founding ethnic group, and that it has the right to self-determination and to exclude all others -- is taboo only for European-descended people. Every other group can do it.
Now European-descended groups want the same thing because they do not want to abolish themselves and be replaced by mixed-race groups like we find in much of the world. They want Western Civilization back, and this is an important first step.
The SPLC/ADL would be smarter if they recognized that much as Zionism is Nationalism for Jews (read Theodor Herzl if you can) European-descended people have something similar for themselves. Everyone benefits if each group can have Nationalism, and preserve itself.
However, that threatens the globalist idea and its parent ideology, and so there are clumsy, ham-handed and laughably shrill attempts like demonizing Pepe which are just going to backfire on these watchdog groups.

--
Alternative Right.
1. Re:This Is How They Raise Money by drinkypoo · 2016-09-28 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone benefits if each group can have Nationalism, and preserve itself.
  Well, that suggests the question of whether each group can have nationalism and preserve itself, especially when a number of them clearly have directly opposing ideals and want to inhabit the same space. I submit that nationalism is bad for both the Zionists and the Palestinians. Absent their irrational bullshit beliefs, of which the nationalistic ones are only part, they could live together — and they'd probably both benefit from throwing away the dumb parts of their cultures even if they didn't do that. That doesn't make them unique in the world, they're just currently an extremely visible case study.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Operation Google on Reddit by alternative_right · 2016-09-27 14:41 · Score: 1

I already saw Operation Google on internet neckbeard self-stim party Reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Google...

--
Alternative Right.
But Kermit is still OK by Black+Parrot · 2016-09-27 14:43 · Score: 2

so long as he doesn't fat-shame Ms. Piggy.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
1. Re: But Kermit is still OK by bestweasel · 2016-09-27 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  "This is the last time you'll damage the body image of a poor feeble pig, you little racist."
  "It wasn't me. No Miss Piggy, no!"
  "Hai-Yah!"
  "You have rendered me helpless, Miss Piggy. What are you doing with that pan? Please not the legs, not sauteed, aaaarrrgh!!!"
2. Re:But Kermit is still OK by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 22:53 · Score: 0
  
  Typical date with Ms. Piggy.
  Waitress "What will you be having?"
  Kermit "I'll have the pie a la mode and my darling will have the banana split."
  Waitress "Okay, it'll be ready soon."
  Ms. Piggy "... ... ... Kermie, who was that woman?"
3. Re:But Kermit is still OK by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 00:49 · Score: 0
  
  so long as he doesn't fat-shame Ms. Piggy.
  If you watch "The Muppets take Manhattan", there is a segment where Kermit "loses his memories" and berates Miss Piggy in quite a hilarious way.
4. Re:But Kermit is still OK by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  I have it on pretty good authority that Miss Piggy has always been a bit of a porker (even back in the nursery).
Memes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 14:47 · Score: 0

Good thing no one gives a flying fuck what anyone says Pepe means, be it /pol/ trolling idiots or the ADL trolling other idiots.
If you had told me 10 years ago shitposting would be a major factor in a presidential election, I would have laughed at you. The ride never ends, fam.
Re: ADL by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 14:54 · Score: 0

Your an idiot. 88 is the number of Dale Jr, blessed be his name, who has recently been struck a blow dud to concussion symptoms that can't be properly treated due to Obamacare, but who will persevere and like Cole Trickle (played by Tom Cruise before he went fruit loops due to too long in Hollywood) will conquer Daytona once more.
God save NASCAR and the US of A.
Hallelujah. Drivers (can't say gentlemen thanks to Danica and Kurt Busch), start your engines.
WAT? by XSportSeeker · 2016-09-27 14:55 · Score: 1

Am I missing something here? Why is there a need to declare the original meme as a hate symbol when pretty much every meme under the sun has also been co-opted by some community to make racist or homophobic jokes?
I'm not familiar with this ADL organization, but someone better warn them that if these are the standards they are going to use to declare something as a hate symbol, it's just better that they speed up the process and label all Internet memes and popular iconography as hate symbols altogether.
Feels strange man by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 15:06 · Score: 0

The ADL is a Jewish supremacist group.
Go Pepe!
Anti-Defamation League Declares Pepe the Frog a Ha by rickyslashdot · 2016-09-27 15:08 · Score: 1

WOW ! This ranks right up there with PETA (more or less - mostly less). If it's a cartoon, then . . . SO WHAT ! I guess I don't deserve moderator points if this is the type of material I have to deal with.

--
redneck geek
This Just In: Old Woman Yells at Frog by Nova+Express · 2016-09-27 15:10 · Score: 1

Complete with pic.

--
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
I don't know the secret handshake. by swell · 2016-09-27 15:15 · Score: 1, Insightful

Obviously all this is related to some inside joke in some obscure neighborhood on the internest. Since I'm not a denizen of this sub-division of the netisphere, I'm left out. But I do have something to contribute:
Certain portions of our world community claim special status based upon historical events. Anyone who says anything they don't like is subject to being labeled 'anti-Semitic' and being blackballed by certain elements of the Power Structure.
I look forward to the day when we can all see this labeling as the new McCarthyism. It's time to override the 'special status' of Israeli Jews and look critically at what they do and whether they are respectable citizens of the world. Are they deserving of billions of dollars in military support?

--
...omphaloskepsis often...
1. Re:I don't know the secret handshake. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 19:52 · Score: 0
  
  Mod parent up!
2. Re:I don't know the secret handshake. by Gussington · 2016-09-27 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  Certain portions of our world community claim special status based upon historical events.
  You know you know you if you ignore them they cease to exist?
  There are millions of special interest groups that all have their own take on the world, and they survive on attention. GroupXYZ can declare anything they like as evil but if we all ignore them they will eventually go away.
3. Re:I don't know the secret handshake. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 23:39 · Score: 0
  
  Let me help, since no one is coming out and telling what happened.
  Don Trump Jr. tweeted a picture of him and others (I haven't seen the picture it may have been the Trump family) with Pepe in it with a wig on. The second the Clinton campaign saw that they started a blitz that Pepe was a cartoon used by racists and it proved Trump was a racists. Apparently they were trolled into saying it and now it has gotten out of hand. Looks like all this is because Clinton campaign jumped on a joke from a 15 year old and didn't spend 5 minutes researching to see if what they were saying was true.
4. Re:I don't know the secret handshake. by AmiMoJo · 2016-09-28 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  This is a common tactic in the on-going culture wars: adopt a popular meme and corrupt it to your own agenda, relying on its popularity to make it seem like your cause has more support than it really does.
  I agree with you about ridiculous claims of anti-Semitism though. There was a call on programme on the BBC a few months back where several people called to say that things like criticising Israel's annexing of Palestinian land or methods of self-defence was anti-Semitic. Criticism is not hate speech.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
5. Re:I don't know the secret handshake. by meta-monkey · 2016-09-28 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it's the Israeli Jews that are freaking out so much about Pepe. The ADL is more concerned with the diaspora Jews.
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
6. Re:I don't know the secret handshake. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-29 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, but (((this group))) has a fucking HUGE proportion of quite literally all the wealth in the world to draw upon.
  They don't need your attention, the own your house, and the company you work for, a few times removed.
Stunning Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 15:25 · Score: 0

The Anti-Defamation League has defamed the entire community of Pepe enthusiasts, despite knowing nothing of their culture or history, based on the actions of a few twisted fringe members.
Dat Boi? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 15:35 · Score: 0

Is he safe?
Pepe? Sounds Mexican. by aristotle-dude · 2016-09-27 15:45 · Score: 1

Does the ADL hate Mexicans? If so, does that not make them racist?

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
1. Re:Pepe? Sounds Mexican. by Ash-Fox · 2016-09-27 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  Does the ADL hate Mexicans
  No idea.
  
  If so, does that not make them racist?
  A racist is a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
  The term 'Mexican' does not identify race, but rather ethnicity, culture and national heritage.
  In short, no.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
2. Re:Pepe? Sounds Mexican. by will_die · 2016-09-28 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Probably yes.
  Also out this week is:
  MSNBC calling Star Wars racist, Darth Vader, the main villain is black
  Make fun of that black multi-millionaire football player who would not stand up for the National Anthem is racist.
3. Re:Pepe? Sounds Mexican. by aristotle-dude · 2016-09-28 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Does the ADL hate Mexicans
  No idea.
  
  If so, does that not make them racist?
  A racist is a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
  The term 'Mexican' does not identify race, but rather ethnicity, culture and national heritage.
  In short, no.
  *WOOOSH* Your definition of racism is flawed. Racism is not just where someone believes a race is superior to another. You also fail to recognize the racism that Mexicans face every day. You also missed the opportunity to realize that there is actually only one race of humans and that the "racial" groups were invented by racist european scientists to justify their ethnic hatred and belief that they have a right to "own" people of other "races" as slaves.
  Humans of various ethnicities can interbred with each other producing viable offspring. We all have the same basic set of genes with slight variation within our nuclear DNA. The only think people have to watch out for are blood factors and closeness of relatedness. Blood factors can be treated at this point.
  
  --
  Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
4. Re:Pepe? Sounds Mexican. by aristotle-dude · 2016-09-28 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Probably yes. Also out this week is: MSNBC calling Star Wars racist, Darth Vader, the main villain is black Make fun of that black multi-millionaire football player who would not stand up for the National Anthem is racist.
  I am glad that you recognize the parody I was making unlike some people. We are all one race, the human race. We need to stop using these stupid labels. African American is a stupid label. Africa is a continent and if neither you or your parents were from another country, you are just an American. In fact, unless if you are born in another country and immigrated to the US, you are just an American regardless of what ethnicity you think you are.
  
  --
  Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
5. Re:Pepe? Sounds Mexican. by Ash-Fox · 2016-09-28 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  *WOOOSH* Your definition of racism is flawed.
  
  Google and dictionaries apparently concur on the definition of "racist", you're the odd one out here.
  
  You also fail to recognize the racism that Mexicans face every day.
  They might recieve racism against that individual's race, but that's nothing to do with being "Mexcian", because "Mexican" is not a race.
  I get the impression you're trying to say they are on the recieving end of prejudices and descrimination, which isn't sufficient reason to be defined 'racism' in it self.
  
  You also missed the opportunity to realize that there is actually only one race of humans
  You're making a fair few accusations and assumptions there. My discussion was strictly on the words being used to describe something.
  
  Humans of various ethnicities can interbred with each other producing viable offspring. We all have the same basic set of genes with slight variation within our nuclear DNA. The only think people have to watch out for are blood factors and closeness of relatedness. Blood factors can be treated at this point.
  This is pretty off topic to what was being discussed.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
6. Re:Pepe? Sounds Mexican. by NotAPK · 2016-09-28 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Ash-Fox: is this you?
7. Re:Pepe? Sounds Mexican. by Ash-Fox · 2016-09-28 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  Ash-Fox: is this you?
  You'll probably prefer the pictures on this blog, more dynamic use of HDR and exposure effects.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Reclaim Pepe by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 16:26 · Score: 0

Reclaim Pepe for sad people and lovers of bad drawing.
PEPE markets respond with brisk uptick by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 17:04 · Score: 0

PEPE memes have brushed this latest development aside entirely and continue their rapid rise in value. Check the RAREPEPE, SHITCOINCARD, GOXPEPE, and PEPECASH tickers on the Counterparty (XCP) DEX (Decentralized Exchange)
Chink by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 17:07 · Score: 0

> Or just another chink in the chain of media bullshit controlled by garbage in control.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Seriously, its the opposite of your intended meaning.
Which is so appropriately ironic.
1. Re: Chink by bestweasel · 2016-09-27 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  Link in the chain
  Chink in the armour
  Blink in the brain
  Link in the armour
  Chink in the chain
Dear ADL, by PPH · 2016-09-27 17:15 · Score: 1

We understand your concern with the latest incarnation of hate speech on the Internet. Unfortunately, at this time we are busy trying to figure out how not to get so many black people shot by police. So you will have to excuse us if we don't share your same level of urgency over a cartoon frog.
Sincerely, the American public.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:Dear ADL, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  One weird trick to not being shot by police is not deserving it by fighting them, or threatening them with a weapon.
  Works for us whites!
2. Re:Dear ADL, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  One weird trick to not being shot by police is not deserving it by fighting them, or threatening them with a weapon.
  Works for us whites!
  Might work for US based honkeys, but tell that to the families of this guyor this guy (and feel free to point any idiot from the UK who bleats about US gun laws and your trigger happy cops to these pages..)
Guy that owns ADL by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 17:20 · Score: 0

I just can't help but draw the irrational conclusion that HRC is really pissed about the pepe memes so they pulled this guy in to deride them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Re: ADL by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 17:52 · Score: 0

Hang yourself already.
F***ING NORMIES by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 17:52 · Score: 0

Don't know the difference between frogs and nazis.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
So... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 18:22 · Score: 0

If it's a muslim/Arabic guy holding a bomb we call it free speech, but if it's antisemitic then we call it hate speech, which is weird because the first image is actually also antisemitic in nature.
Here's an idea, let's combine the star of David and swastika, and create a meme from that and see the AOL fags' mind blown.
1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 19:56 · Score: 0
  
  So you HAVE been on /pol/ this week. Did they ever decide if the star of david should be blue or purple? Green and blue would be good for a daily dose...
Lemme get this straight by Opportunist · 2016-09-27 18:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Some internet trolls take a meme and dress it up to be anti-semitic. For some odd reason this (out of the thousand others that work just the same way) gets the attention of the ADL and they declare the meme, not the dress-up, but the meme, to be anti-semitic.
Seriously, if I was the troll, I'd feel on top of the world. This must be the apex of trolldom. Ultimate validation.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Re:Lemme get this straight by norweeg · 2016-09-28 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  until primary season, I had not seen anything but innocent, neutral Pepes. Now, all I see are Nazi Pepes and memes being used for evil. All other Pepes are now rare. It's disturbing to me that these groups have enough presence to be able to affect the tone of the meme to this degree
2. Re:Lemme get this straight by bill_mcgonigle · 2016-09-28 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, if I was the troll, I'd feel on top of the world. This must be the apex of trolldom. Ultimate validation.
  Penultimate. When they take the ADL logo and put a 'stache on it and start trolling Facebook with it, then troll nirvana will have been achieved.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
3. Re:Lemme get this straight by T.E.D. · 2016-09-28 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  For some odd reason this (out of the thousand others that work just the same way) gets the attention
  The "odd reason" in question being that its now completely ubiquitous. Not only can you find Pepe material with White Supremicist content on pretty much any trending hashtag on twitter, but hecklers have taken to yelling "Pepe!" in person when politicians are giving speeches about race.
  As far as the KKK crowd goes, the meer mention of "Pepe" is now synonymous with their cause. The ADL and various new media reporting this is just acknowledging reality, along with warning the rest of us what this means.
4. Re:Lemme get this straight by meta-monkey · 2016-09-28 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Do you think the KKK came up with the Pepe the frog meme?
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
5. Re:Lemme get this straight by Opportunist · 2016-09-28 03:26 · Score: 2
  
  The logical counter-troll would be to take nazi-pepe and ridicule him.
  Laughter is a powerful weapon against repressive organizations and movements. The very last thing they can deal with is not being taken serious, mostly because they're usually so full of insecurities and dependence on outside validation that ridiculing them is a powerful blow to their ego.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
6. Re:Lemme get this straight by T.E.D. · 2016-09-28 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Do you think the KKK came up with the Pepe the frog meme?
  I don't really care who came up with it. That's neither the issue nor the subject under discussion.
7. Re:Lemme get this straight by meta-monkey · 2016-09-28 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  Okay. Reality is a bunch of 4channers spammed Nazi frogs to troll the media and the Clinton campaign. So the people posting the frogs aren't evil KKK nazis, it's that hacker on steroids known as 4chinz.
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
8. Re:Lemme get this straight by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  Except they're not actually Nazis. Most of the memery is being instigated by 4chan shitposters that find it fucking hilarious that their cancer has infected reality. Every time the ADL or Hillary Clinton's campaign has to shed light on Pepe The Fucking Frog, it just gets funnier and funnier. The 2016 Election has had to lend credence to a fucking 4chan meme.
  And it all started with Trump retweeting a picture of Pepe with Trump's combover.
9. Re:Lemme get this straight by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 17:27 · Score: 0
  
  repressive organizations like the ADL can be ridiculed by causing them to publicly denounce a cartoon frog
10. Re:Lemme get this straight by T.E.D. · 2016-09-29 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  Reality is a bunch 4channers spammed
  
  Reality is that a real-live "alt-right" heckler yelled "Pepe!" While Clinton was talking about Trump's neo-KKK supporters. Reality is that Breitbart tracked the heckler down for an interview (not gonna promote them by linking it. Look it up yourself if you really want to). Assuming they didn't just make it up again (always a possibility with Breitbart), he proudly called himself "alt-right", and proceeded to express his admiration for the typical new racist heroes. He did indeed state that "Pepe" symbolizes the racist movement he identifies with.
Re: ADL is not adjusted to the internet age by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 18:42 · Score: 0

How can somebody write something where one paragraph is so accurate and the next paragraph is so completely wrong?
appropriated by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 19:13 · Score: 0

... the character has been co-opted ...

The swastika and white pointed hoody (think KKK) were originally religious symbols. This appropriation by evil forces is a psychological form of fraud. People think they're getting one meme but instead receive a different, destructive meme. In the process, the original meaning of the symbol is lost and a small bit of culture is destroyed. When people realize the original symbolism has been hijacked, the propaganda machine must find a new symbol to carry their 'diseased' message to unsuspecting victims.
I do not care a shit about this... by ruir · 2016-09-27 19:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

Has slashdot become the outlet of political correctness gone wrong and pussies of the world united?
1. Re:I do not care a shit about this... by drinkypoo · 2016-09-27 23:36 · Score: 2
  
  Has slashdot become the outlet of political correctness gone wrong and pussies of the world united?
  No, it's just the outlet of wrong, since the headline is inflammatory bullshit. The ADL did not declare Pepe to be a hatemonger. They mentioned that some people are making Nazi Pepes, and that some of these are symbols of hate. (Obviously you can make Nazi characters without promoting Nazism, by using them as targets of humor or what have you.)
  Isn't pussies of the world united a lesbian film? Talk about V2V
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:I do not care a shit about this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 01:03 · Score: 0
  
  /. is dead. The new owners will post any ol' flame-bait to generate clicks to prove the business is worth advertising with. It's bad enough you see "news" here that was covered in the Daily Mail (fscktards united) days earlier.
3. Re:I do not care a shit about this... by avandesande · 2016-09-28 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  True- the BS is spread evenly.
  
  --
  love is just extroverted narcissism
4. Re:I do not care a shit about this... by Verdatum · 2016-09-28 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  No. Have you read slashdot comments lately? Slashdot has become the outlet of angry emasculated socially-inept dorks who rail and shout at their "SJW" boogeywoman because everyone capable of actual intelligent discussion has long ago given up on this website.
5. Re:I do not care a shit about this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 12:15 · Score: 0
  
  Which explains why you're still here.
6. Re:I do not care a shit about this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 13:13 · Score: 0
  
  Slashdot has become the outlet of angry emasculated socially-inept dorks who rail and shout at their "SJW" boogeywoman because everyone capable of actual intelligent discussion has long ago given up on this website.
  Oh, go on ... no need to be so vague, you can call out Hylandr by his moniker.
I do, i do by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 20:59 · Score: 0

I do so wonder, what the ADL did or whether it took action to protect those innocent families in Israel and Palestine who had their plantations and land ruined by the Israeli army to forcibly evict them.
Oh no wait, let me guess. Only Jews are entitled to protection. They are the special people. Everyone else is an animal.
The ADL is a bunch of corrupt scammers and frauds who should be put into prison themselves for having the gall and arrogance to actually determine themselves as some kind of judge, jury, and executioner, on culture of whatever kind.
Even though the title is misleading, the fact alone that the ADL even considers, and talks as if they are some authority whose opinion matters, is deplorable.
A bunch of nitwits using "well-meaning" as an excuse to thought police, and often to destructive effects where they twist the positions of victims and oppressors just so long as it benefits Israel and Jews and portrays them as infallible.
No by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 21:18 · Score: 0

Lemme get this straight - Some internet trolls take a meme and dress it up to be anti-semitic. For some odd reason this (out of the thousand others that work just the same way) gets the attention of the ADL and they declare the meme, not the dress-up, but the meme, to be anti-semitic.
Well let's see what they said:
However, because so many Pepe the Frog memes are not bigoted in nature, it is important to examine use of the meme only in context. The mere fact of posting a Pepe meme does not mean that someone is racist or white supremacist. However, if the meme itself is racist or anti-Semitic in nature, or if it appears in a context containing bigoted or offensive language or symbols, then it may have been used for hateful purposes.
It looks like your understanding is pretty crooked still.
I'm guessing the problem is that even with so few examples of it happening, you are assuming anything in a slashdot summary has any truth to it and isn't really the exact opposite of what happened.
You really should know better than that by now.
Who are these people? by undefinedreference · 2016-09-27 21:31 · Score: 1

How do these groups justify their existence over 40 years after the junk science of "race" was completely debunked? There is clearly a lot of money to be made by perpetuating junk science and peddling that garbage to the uneducated masses.
1. Re:Who are these people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 00:30 · Score: 0
  
  How do these groups justify their existence over 40 years after the junk science of "race" was completely debunked?
  Why not?
  Forty years later and we're still at each others throats, demanding the disastrous political policies of our grandparents' parties.
2. Re:Who are these people? by meta-monkey · 2016-09-28 03:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  How do these groups justify their existence over 40 years after the junk science of "race" was completely debunked?
  It's kind of the other way around. Evolution tells us that different environments create selection pressure for/against different traits, which causes species to differentiate into distinct haplogroups or entirely different species. Most everyone agrees that modern humans left Africa and spread throughout the world between 50,000 - 100,000 years ago. Now if I were to take any other animal, say a canid, and stick a bunch of them in northern europe and a bunch of them in Africa and then ask if you if it's possible that after 100,000 years we'd get very different animals descended from the common ancestors, you'd agree. And if I suggested those differences might be more than mere coloration, but extended to speed, strength, size, and even temperament and intelligence you would probably agree. But if that animal is man instead of a dog you'd call me an evil racist to suggest that perhaps the cold climates of northern europe selected against those humans who weren't intelligent enough to make long-term plans while the year-round abundance of food in Africa selected against the weak and slow but not against the unintelligent.
  We're basically having the Scopes monkey trial all in reverse, where the "progressives" take as dogma the claim that mankind is special and stopped evolving the instant they stepped out of Africa.
  The way the political left gets their power is by first declaring that different groups are equivalent (without evidence or proof), enforcing this false equivalence as a moral issue (you're not just wrong but evil and morally repugnant if you don't agree), then pointing out the differences in outcome between these groups (actually caused by their biological differences, not deliberate actions), but since you've already accepted the false equivalence, the only explanation must be that the more successful group is oppressing the less successful group. This justifies giving political power to the left in order to correct this injustice. If you recognized the fundamental inequality of ability, there would be nothing to do and the left would have no power. It would just be the way it is.
  For instance, in the United States the average IQ for blacks is 85, 92 for Latinos, 100 for whites, 108 for asians, and 115 for Ashkenazi Jews. This correlates very well to income levels for each group. In the US the median incomes for Jews is the highest, followed by Asians, then whites, then Latinos and then blacks. When confronted with this fact, politically motivated leftists will "debunk" the research by attacking the researchers, attacking the tests, and generally by making a bunch of hysterical and fallacious arguments. They then cite each other as proof the research has been "debunked" when in fact it hasn't, and any points they may have had (like for instance the idea that the IQ tests themselves are biased towards one group or another) have been addressed and either explained or corrected. But the results still stand.
  It would be nice if the left would acknowledge this and stop calling society (and whites particularly) evil because, say, the proportion of engineers working at FaceBook who are black doesn't match the proportion of blacks in society. That's basically impossible because when you look at the distribution of intelligence by race a much smaller proportion of blacks have the, say, 120+ IQ required to get through engineering school than whites or asians. No societal injustice is taking place, it's just that bitch Mother Nature.
  So if you want to know how these groups justify their existence, it's because the evil racists are factually correct and the leftists deny basic evolutionary biology because without their false premise of innate equality their ideology falls apart, and no one will give them power anymore.
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
3. Re:Who are these people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  "junk science of "race" was completely debunked"
  LOL Yup. Because black people are really just white people who happen to have dark skin, right? And I suppose it's just a really weird statistical anomaly that the overwhelming majority of NFL and NBA players are black when only 13% of the U.S. population is black.
  Anyone who actually believes there is no such thing as "race" is a complete fool.
4. Re:Who are these people? by drinkypoo · 2016-09-28 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Evolution tells us that different environments create selection pressure for/against different traits, which causes species to differentiate into distinct haplogroups or entirely different species.
  Science tells us that "species" as a term is highly overrated and grossly misunderstood. But by no definition are different kinds of humans anywhere near to being different species. You might describe them as different varieties, at most.
  
  Most everyone agrees that modern humans left Africa and spread throughout the world between 50,000 - 100,000 years ago. Now if I were to take any other animal, say a canid, and stick a bunch of them in northern europe and a bunch of them in Africa and then ask if you if it's possible that after 100,000 years we'd get very different animals descended from the common ancestors, you'd agree.
  The things about them that needed to change will have changed. The things that didn't mostly won't.
  
  But if that animal is man instead of a dog you'd call me an evil racist to suggest that perhaps the cold climates of northern europe selected against those humans who weren't intelligent enough to make long-term plans while the year-round abundance of food in Africa selected against the weak and slow but not against the unintelligent.
  That's because it's an unintelligent argument. Intelligence is good for you no matter what your situation, and strength and speed don't preclude intelligence. Also, stupid people have intelligent children, and vice versa.
  
  For instance, in the United States the average IQ for blacks is 85, 92 for Latinos, 100 for whites, 108 for asians, and 115 for Ashkenazi Jews. This correlates very well to income levels for each group.
  Correlation, he said, is not causation. That's a sophomoric error. Is this just a kiddie troll?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
5. Re:Who are these people? by meta-monkey · 2016-09-28 07:53 · Score: 2
  
  Science tells us that "species" as a term is highly overrated and grossly misunderstood. But by no definition are different kinds of humans anywhere near to being different species. You might describe them as different varieties, at most.
  This is the type of meaningless, muddying-the-waters handwave I was talking about. It doesn't matter what you call the different animal group: species, haplogroup, ethnicity, race, "bunch of people who vaguely stayed in this geographic area for this length of time." At the end of the day you have a group of animals to which a different selection pressure was applied over tens of thousands of years, which results in different traits.
  Unless of course, man is some kind of magical animal where populations can be separated by 50,000 years plus, and yet have the only changes be cosmetic. How did that happen? Was it God?
  
  The things about them that needed to change will have changed. The things that didn't mostly won't.
  Intelligence is good for you no matter what your situation, and strength and speed don't preclude intelligence.
  Intelligence being good for you is not the same as stupidity being bad for you. We generally talk about selection pressure working against a trait, not for it. A seasonal climate with harsh winters that needs to be prepared for selects against those who cannot engage in long term planning. In a temperate or tropical setting with food available year-round low intelligence isn't selected against.
  
  Also, stupid people have intelligent children, and vice versa.
  What is regression to the mean.
  
  For instance, in the United States the average IQ for blacks is 85, 92 for Latinos, 100 for whites, 108 for asians, and 115 for Ashkenazi Jews. This correlates very well to income levels for each group.
  
  Correlation, he said, is not causation. That's a sophomoric error.
  
  But correlation is required for causation. Are you suggesting intelligence is irrelevant to income-earning potential for most people?
  
  Is this just a kiddie troll?
  There's that ad hominem. Please argue science instead of your politics.
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
6. Re:Who are these people? by drinkypoo · 2016-09-28 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  Intelligence being good for you is not the same as stupidity being bad for you.
  Of course it is. Intelligence is a scale, at one end we call it stupidity and at the other we call it intelligence. Less of one is more of the other.
  
  But correlation is required for causation. Are you suggesting intelligence is irrelevant to income-earning potential for most people?
  I'm outright saying that income-earning potential is relevant to eventual performance on an IQ test. And it's not news, this is a well-known critique of IQ testing. People who use it to try to prove things usually fail.
  Intelligence is a benefit as long as it doesn't impede your ability to breed. And it doesn't. It's good in all kinds of situations, even smashing things with a rock. Getting just the right smash on is aided by intelligence.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
7. Re:Who are these people? by meta-monkey · 2016-09-28 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  Of course it is. Intelligence is a scale, at one end we call it stupidity and at the other we call it intelligence. Less of one is more of the other.
  But that's not how selection pressure works. It's "you must be at least this fit to ride this ride." Do you understand the difference between a low-pass filter and a high-pass filter?
  
  I'm outright saying that income-earning potential is relevant to eventual performance on an IQ test.
  What causes "income-earning potential," then? Are people born with "doctoring potential," which lets them score high on an IQ test? What are the independent variables and what are the dependent variables here?
  To be honest, I don't even know what you're arguing for here. Do you think every group of humans (however you slice them) has the same distribution of intelligence? What theory compatible with evolutionary biology explains this?
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
8. Re:Who are these people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 16:34 · Score: 0
  
  Sure it maybe correlates, but that in no way means it is influenced in any way by genetics. Discrimination and low income have been shown over and over again to influence IQ levels directly. IE a causation. You are just blowing smoke. And anyone who modded you up is probably of equally low IQ. Are you all self hating blacks per chance?
9. Re:Who are these people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 16:55 · Score: 0
  
  Why are you naively assuming it has anything to do with being born with anything? It's obvious to anyone with a handful of braincells to group together that environment and opportunities are going to far out-way any theoretical 'being born different' differences that you are trying to claim.
10. Re:Who are these people? by meta-monkey · 2016-09-29 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Science does not agree with you. Early school programs do not boost IQ and adopted adults’ IQ is so unrelated to the IQ of their adoptive mother that in some studies the correlation shows up as nonsignificantly negative. So Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's adopted African kids are going to have IQs the correlate to their birth parents, and not to Brangelinas', even though they had it as good or better than Shiloh.
  I'm not assuming. It's science. Intelligence is inherited. It is nature, not nurture.
  Also, as I predicted, the specious handwave:
  
  Why are you naively assuming it has anything to do with being born with anything?
  Followed by the ad hominem:
  
  It's obvious to anyone with a handful of braincells to group together that environment and opportunities are going to far out-way
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
11. Re:Who are these people? by meta-monkey · 2016-09-29 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Sure it maybe correlates, but that in no way means it is influenced in any way by genetics.
  The general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to an authoritative American Psychological Association report, is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late teens and adults.
  
  Discrimination
  Citation needed.
  
  and low income have been shown over and over again to influence IQ levels directly. IE a causation.
  Yes, extreme poverty resulting in malnutrition or abuse can lower IQ. But the base IQ was genetic. So much so that adopted adults’ IQ is so unrelated to the IQ of their adoptive mother that in some studies the correlation shows up as nonsignificantly negative. You can fuck kids up, but you can't really make them much smarter than they were born, due to their genetics.
  And of course as predicted the handwave:
  
  You are just blowing smoke.
  And the ad hominem:
  
  And anyone who modded you up is probably of equally low IQ. Are you all self hating blacks per chance?
  Better question: are you perhaps a self-hating white? Why else deny the completely obvious, well-studied, and easily available via a google search research on the heritability of intelligence and the differences between geographically separated human haplogroups? I say specifically "self-hating white" because you can't really be anything else. No one else in the world believes this tripe. Go to China, to Japan, to India, to any non-western scientifically developed nation and ask their anthropologists and geneticists if different groups of humans (for lack of a better word "races") have differences in intelligence distributions and they'll say "of course." Ask the Africans in Africa even, they'll agree. Only white-guilt plagued western leftists will cover their eyes and ears and shout insults. Oh and then will turn right around and claim their moral superiority over the religious and conservatives because they FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE.
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
12. Re:Who are these people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-29 01:50 · Score: 0
  
  Contempt is just as reprehensible as anything else.
  You should try to turn down your own emotional reaction.
13. Re:Who are these people? by meta-monkey · 2016-09-29 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  I see no reason to be civil with uncivil people, and leftists are far from civil.
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
14. Re:Who are these people? by max99ted · 2016-09-29 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  You can make a point without the leftist comments. It doesn't reflect well.
  
  --
  
  Please stop APK.. you're only hurting yourself.
Rules of of the Internet by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 22:13 · Score: 0

If there isn't hate speech made of it, somebody will make it.
> ADL Hitler jihad shalom!
There, now they can declare themselves as hate symbol.
At a press conference Luckey Palmer announces: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 22:49 · Score: 0

I AM PEPE THE FROG!
OOOOORRRRrrrrrr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 02:31 · Score: 0

You could just keep using it without the mustaches and other shit. ADL seems like a hate group to me.
Skinheads by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 02:31 · Score: 1

Goddamned Nazis did this to the skinhead movement too. It started as a punk assertive movement, and was quickly co-opted by neo-Nazi "warriors." This is why we can't have nice things.
Re: At last, secular Jews unite with Muslim fanati by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 02:39 · Score: 0

The ADL is a group of Jews who act as an attack machine for Israel.
FTFY and removed the excuse for your rant.
Re:ADL by meta-monkey · 2016-09-28 02:44 · Score: 1

You're gonna be so mad when Trump wins. So mad.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Micky Mouse? by myowntrueself · 2016-09-28 03:15 · Score: 2

So if Micky Mouse starts getting portrayed with a hitler mustache, wearing a yarmulke or a Klan hood can we get him declared a hate symbol as well? Because I'd love to see Disney screwed like that.

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
No, ADL actually DOES "fight for social justice" by raymorris · 2016-09-28 03:15 · Score: 1

I think you misunderstood. GP simply said that ADL is a bunch of social justice warriors. That's entirely correct, according to ADL. He didn't "blame" the SJWs for anything, he said ADL is SJWs, and it is, they say they are. A few references from the ADL web site for you:
http://blog.adl.org/tags/socia...
http://www.adl.org/education-o...
http://stlouis.adl.org/the-fut...
http://blog.adl.org/education/...
http://www.adl.org/education-o...
Like p*dobear by phorm · 2016-09-28 03:40 · Score: 1

My understanding is that in the early stages, the bear was inserted into pictures to show people that "anyone can see this picture and might be 'enjoying' it for other reasons"/ It was anti-perverts using it as a warning against posting your kids private pics online
Later PB pretty much got adopted as a mascot for perverts.
Everything Is A Hate Symbol by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 03:41 · Score: 0

I know I've seen some Hello Hitler (Hello Kitty w/ a Hitler mustache) images before. I'm sure that Hello Kitty and Pepe the Frog are not the only ones to receive such treatment. Why then is Pepe the scapegoat here?
Re:ADL by PopeRatzo · 2016-09-28 03:49 · Score: 1

You're gonna be so mad when Trump wins. So mad.
I'm not mad, I'm laughing.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2016-09-28 05:02 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Even Funnier... by pastafazou · 2016-09-28 05:47 · Score: 1

The whole Pepe as a racist meme was a prank by two twitter users trolling a reporter: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09...
See also by drinkypoo · 2016-09-28 06:48 · Score: 1

dailycaller's take, slightly more amusing

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's how Kermit likes 'em by drinkypoo · 2016-09-28 07:09 · Score: 1

He's so into pigs he got himself a younger pig

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Trump supporters breath and drink! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 07:47 · Score: 0

Trump supporters breath air and drink water!
Will you pledge to immediately cease participating in these vile activities, comrade?
Re:No, ADL actually DOES "fight for social justice by Rakarra · 2016-09-28 07:49 · Score: 2

ADL is both pro- and anti- "social justice," or at least the modern day's concept of it.
On one hand, most people concerned about the social justice side of Israeli/Palestinian relations tend to think that the Palestinians have gotten a pretty raw deal from the whole thing, what with them getting their land "bought out" to create Israel, current West Bank issues, etc. However, ADL is also a radically pro-Israel and pro-Zionist organization, enough that they have repeatedly tried to conflate criticism of Israel's policies with anti-Semitism itself. So they're sortof a weird outlier at odds with, say SPLC or other 'anti-hate' groups.
Flame Baiting for Dark Side inertia by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 08:07 · Score: 0

Most of the consumptive advertising funded Internet (Google - YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc) attains revenue by harvesting attention by exploiting the human cognitive bias of availability cascades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_cascade .. by threatening a lower need (Maslov needs, Socrates appetite Soul, etc) reflexive polar unconsciousness is induced, attraction/adversion polarity reflexes are engaged and behavior is properly channelized and monetized.
It's a cancerous meme anyway by allo · 2016-09-28 08:19 · Score: 1

But declaring it as hate symbol is bullshit. From people who do not understand memes and snowclones.
"Warrior" does mean taking sides by raymorris · 2016-09-28 09:28 · Score: 1

No doubt some Palestinians got a raw deal in 1967. Now their grandchildren are bombing schoolkids, hospitals, and paramedics. Neither group is the good guy in that conflict, if you look at it with any intellectual honesty.
As far as "most people concerned", voting suggests that most in the US support Israel, though some support the Palestinians (most of *those* do in fact prattle on about the Jews' conspiracies to take over the US), and some see that two groups killing each other is just bad all around.
It seems to be the nature of warriors, Social Justice warriors and most other kinds, to always take sides. In this case, they've picked the Israeli side. I find that neither surprising nor inconsistent with their core world view that the world is full of weak victims who need a SJW to ride in on a white horse and save them.
Actually, they DON'T by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 10:11 · Score: 0

You need to pay more attention to the ACTIONS of special interest groups rather than their rhetoric. The ADL is far more dedicated to defending various Democrat politicians in the US than to the Jewish people or Israel. They defend Democrat politicians who are hostile to Israel and attack politicians who are completely in the tank for Israel.
Politics in the US have become so entwined with money, and so dedicated to keeping their executives and staff members employed and well paid, that a great many organizations of both the left and the right are more aligned in their actions with what's needed for fundraising than they are aligned with the names they have given themselves or the slogans and PR campaigns they use.
FIRST, they came for Pepe the frog by TheRealHocusLocus · 2016-09-28 23:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

First, they came for Pepe the frog.
I didn't speak up, because I was not a Trump supporter...
Then, they infiltrated ICANN and began matching expressions to block registration of new 'hateful' domain names.
Then, the international copyright corpus paid lucrative fees to have trademarks added to the 'hate' blocking database.
Then, root and 1LD servers began returning NXDOMAIN responses to 'non-compliant' names, regardless of prior existence or fees paid.
Then, the servers began returning NXDOMAIN responses even if the 'non-compliant' match was in the subdomain portion.
Then, the servers began silently completing 'non-compliant' name responses to build a database of 'non-compliant' ip addresses.
Then, the tier 1 companies and consortium ISPs began black-holing non-compliant ip addresses.
Then, the tier 1s developed the 'ICMP trace-ping' to centrally log attempts to reach non-compliant ip addresses.
Then, the international non-compliance organization (managed by ICANN) began issuing automated 'takedown' requests for the source ip addresses.
Then, consortium ISPs streamlined the takedown process and modified their TOS to support the suspension of non-compliant service.
Then, the FBI and NSA joined TOR to issue a steady stream of 'non-compliant' traffic to ensure that all onion nodes remain suspended.
Then, countries such as China are maintaining their own clone of the non-compliance framework for their own (eg, Falun Gong) reasons.
Then, 'peace treaties' between countries are negotiated with conditions that member countries mutually share and implement their respective 'non-compliance' framework.
Here, my dystopian Internet vision ends.
Pepe the frog survives, though he is reading a book by candle light.
Don't get me started on non-compliant books.

--
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-29 00:09 · Score: 0

Completely ridiculous
Idiots by GustavoLopez · 2016-09-29 00:21 · Score: 1

They are worried about a stupid frog cartoon while our world is going to shit What to go United States of America
for those who ask what is a "pepe the frog" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-29 08:18 · Score: 0

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/28/495760153/i-guess-we-need-to-talk-about-pepe-the-frog
I didn't know either... I HAD, however heard of THIS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect ... go figure...
Fuck ADL by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 21:28 · Score: 0

The ADL is a hate organization, they hate on all other groups than Jews, throwing that "anti-semitism" bullshit on anyone they dont like. Fuckem!