Slashdot Mirror


Pepe the Frog Is Dead (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The creator of Pepe the Frog has symbolically killed off the cartoon frog, effectively surrendering control of the character to the far right. Matt Furie, an artist and children's book author, created the now-infamous frog as part of his "Boy's Club" series on MySpace in 2005. Pepe took on a life of its own online as a meme, before being eventually adopted as a symbol by the "alt-right" in the lead-up to last year's U.S. election. In September, Hillary Clinton identified Pepe the Frog as a racist hate symbol, and Pepe was added to the Anti-Defamation League's database of hate symbols. Furie launched a campaign to "Save Pepe," flooding the internet with "peaceful or nice" depictions of the character in a bid to shake its association with white supremacy and antisemitism. But he now seems to have conceded defeat, killing the character off in a one-page strip for the independent publisher Fantagraphics' Free Comic Book Day. It showed Pepe laid to rest in an open casket, being mourned by his fellow characters from Boy's Club.

358 comments

  1. More by Mikkeles · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Another reason to despise Hilary and the ADL.

    --
    Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    1. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally, I blame the people who defamed the frog. Not the strawman reason for why they did it.

    2. Re:More by computational+super · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah really... as far as I can tell, the "alt right" just made Pepe into a pro-Trump symbol. So, they're saying that supporting (or even not despising) the otherwise democratically elected president of the United States is "hate"? Historically, this sort of thing doesn't end well.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    3. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Neither Hillary of the ADL did this.

      The author didn't like the fact his cartoon was being used by the alt-right and didn't like the alt-right in general.

      If fedchan wants their frog, they can keep it, but the creator of the frog wants nothing to do with any of it, and never did. Thats on no one but fedchan

    4. Re:More by penandpaper · · Score: 4, Funny

      God you people are thicc..

      ftfy

      may pepe forgive me for this bad correction.

      feelsbadman.jpg

    5. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      4chan did it exactly for this reason.

      They saw normal celebrities using the meme and wanted to ruin it, so several hundred people worked together to make it seem like racists and anti semites were behind it.

      I know because I am one of them. I'm also Jewish.

      Mission so fucking accomplished.. You have no idea how many times I've laid in bed at night jacking off to Hillary putting him on the same list as the Swastika. It is a magnum opus of trolling and manipulation.

    6. Re: More by gfxguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're why we can't have nice things.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    7. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Joke's on Hillary, you were just pretending to be a bigoted fuckstick.

    8. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You jack off to Hillary Clinton?

    9. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only people who made Pepe an "alt-right hate symbol" were Hillary, the ADL, the MSM, and their idiot lapdogs like you. The article posted on Hillary's own campaign website used as their sole source of evidence a parody Twitter account (@JaredTSwift) that was clearly labeled as such. Of course liberals like yourself never bothered to look past the headlines because they can't help but jerk themselves off constantly about how racist everyone in America is, aside from themselves (which is why they need to conjure up hate crime hoaxes every other day).

      Now that /pol/ knows the true depth of liberal stupidity, they've been inventing hate symbols on the daily. Soon smiling will be considered racist patriarchy by liberals and the MSM. Talk about an embarrassment to Americans.

    10. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WOW. You really don't get it do you? YOU'RE the reason, Hillary is the reason, the ADL is the reason not some guy (or group of people) who trolled them knowing he/they would get a rise out of them such that they'd do something shit assed stupid & claim a frog is a 'symbol of racism'.

      You & they don't even realize they are nearly as stupid as the guy who showed up at a Pizza parlor because of 'Pizzagate', while the former is more immediately worrisome because he brought a gun, the latter of vastly more worrisome to society as they've clearly dropped all pretense of thinking.

    11. Re: More by penandpaper · · Score: 1, Funny

      You don't?

    12. Re: More by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I never heard of Pepe the Frog before the Left branded it a "hate" symbol. The Alt-Right gets all its needed publicity from the Left going nuts over it.

      Political Version of Streisand Effect. By publicizing how awful it is, you're given them more publicity than if everyone simply ignored them. Good Job

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    13. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jokes on you.
      I'm an embedded systems consultant.
      I get to travel all over the world, and in the weekend I shitpost on 4chins.

    14. Re:More by sexconker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The "alt right" didn't do anything. The entire thing was a farce created by 4chan. They do it for the lulz. The mainstream media is absolutely retarded and when they see a bunch of Twitter posts about something they jump on it and run with it. For another example, see how they got a bunch of idiots to report on the "OK" hand gesture being a secret symbol for white power.

    15. Re: More by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Why can't the media, actually fact check things?

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    16. Re: More by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      You say they did it for that reason, but I'm not seeing reason anywhere.

      "I decided to shit in the middle of the floor. Why? So people will see my poop and maybe even step in it. That's the reason, it's a magnum opus of trolling and manipulation!"

    17. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're openly claiming to be a hipster?

    18. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess they'll have to move on to a giant flaccid penis as their mascot now.

    19. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read again, jackass.

      Reason: People like Katy Perry and Nicki Minaj hijacked the feels bad man meme, trying to demonstrate how edgy they were.

      We hijacked it back.

      It's really fucking simple.

    20. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Branding things in terms of "Left" and "Right" makes it obvious that you engage in partisan politics and were probably well aware of "Pepe".

    21. Re: More by citylivin · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yes the oh so open minded conservatives would see right though any trolling attempts on them. Like that obama was not born in the USA, or is a secret muslim.

      They would never "over react" and elect some real life troll to be president of their club. Oh no, they are much smarter than that!

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    22. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone can be the asshole in the room. It's not a talent. The internet is just a very large room. Congratulations.

    23. Re: More by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      You just explained trolling and you don't even know it.

    24. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got it right there bro. The reason 4chan was able to pull this election off had nothing to do with the big bad Russians. It was all about organizing in one of the few anonymous free-speech areas of the internet left. At all costs, we needed to keep Hillary out of power. The other thing that 4chan obviously provides is a way to let off steam and actually have it seen so as to be able to interact with other human beings on a given subject. For example, this comment I leave as AC will remain out of sight by default on Slashdot even though I have not brought harm to anyone with my comments. It really is sad that a green picture of a frog is now a symbol of hate when it has nothing to do with anything other than frustration over a broken system that only caters to dumb and dumber parties of the day. You want to see a real revolution in the USA? You will have to go back to the black panthers. Those fuckers knew how to get things done. Guns, free breakfast for their children, education of their people, and a sense of unity that this country has not seen since. If the people of 4chan really wanted to get things done, they would look to the black panther party of of the 60's for inspiration.... to say "fuck hoover" and his tapping of everyone's phones and COINTELPRO operations to disrupt the status quo.

    25. Re:More by hey! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While there is an element of truth in what you say, it's also true that people exploit the broad license given to humor for purposes other than getting a laugh. The lines between advocacy, humor, and trolling are increasingly blurred.

      What matters in the current media environment isn't ideas, it's attitudes. It doesn't really matter that Obama isn't a Muslim; what matter is how hearing somebody say that makes you feel. An idea like this has political power even for people who don't actually believe it

      This is what "telling it like it is" is all about; it doesn't mean saying things that correspond to some objective truth; it's about a kind of subjective authenticity. "Telling it like it is" means speaking with sincere feeling, even when contradicting yourself. It doesn't matter which alternative version of reality you presented is true (if either is). Philosophers have only recently begun to examine such truth-irrelevant utterances, and the term they use for it is "bullshit".

      The claim of humor arises when you try to nail someone's bullshit politics down, but if you look at the alleged joke, it's invariably not humorous, it's just smug. There is such a thing as political humor, but it by definition takes a position. Alt-right "humor" is all about arousing feelings without being tied to any falsifiable position.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    26. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More faster lib.comz stumble into the gutter breathing bad .... the better. No, a bloodbath twill not end well for the Trotsky-left.

    27. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks comrade. Good to see another empty shitpost on a tech site. See Mitya to collect your rubles and rice ration on the way out.

    28. Re:More by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Element of truth? It's true. It's what happened. People decided to troll the media, and the media bought it - hook, line, and sinker - because they do ZERO fact checking.

      The "alt-right" (which itself is just a label the media tries to apply in an attempt to attack people and groups) had nothing to do with it. At all. It was all fake. And the media, who is so concerned about "fake news", did what it does best and pushed fake news.

      You go on about some bullshit about feelings and humor and again, the alt-right.
      I gave you a factual account of what happened. It had nothing to do with feelings or the alt-right. It had to do with the media being played for the fucking idiots that they are. Regardless of your politics, seeing that play out exactly as fucking planned is fucking hilarious.

    29. Re:More by Kohath · · Score: 1

      So, they're saying that supporting (or even not despising) the otherwise democratically elected president of the United States is "hate"?

      Yes, that's what they're saying.

      Historically, this sort of thing doesn't end well.

      Witch hunts based on hystreia, dramatic storytelling and guilt by association aren't healthy for a society you say? Trying to coerce people into swearing a series of cultural loyalty oaths might have a downside?

    30. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're = you are.

      You fail at grammar, learn how to use it in the correct context properly.

    31. Re: More by divide+overflow · · Score: 0, Troll

      I never heard of Pepe the Frog before the Left branded it a "hate" symbol. The Alt-Right gets all its needed publicity from the Left going nuts over it.

      Political Version of Streisand Effect. By publicizing how awful it is, you're given them more publicity than if everyone simply ignored them. Good Job

      Yeah, the "just ignore it and it will go away on its own" argument. Let's see how your argument sounds when applied to an earlier reinterpreted symbol:

      I never heard of a swastica before the Left branded it a "hate" symbol. The Nazi party get all its needed publicity from the Left going nuts over it.

      Political Version of Streisand Effect. By publicizing how awful it is, you're given them more publicity than if everyone simply ignored them. Good Job

      FIFY?

    32. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah really... as far as I can tell, the "alt right" just made Pepe into a pro-Trump symbol.

      Not quite, the Alt-right started using PePe as part of their communications, much as the Nazis utilized say, the Swaztica or their Salute. With all the rampant race-baiting and asshattery, it thus became discredited.

      Unfortunate, but the right-wing pustules do destroy everything they touch.

      So, they're saying that supporting (or even not despising) the otherwise democratically elected president of the United States is "hate"? Historically, this sort of thing doesn't end well.

      Indeed, Presidents like John Adams and Andrew Jackson took poorly to criticism and opposition, even Buchanan went into fits at how he was condemned for his failures in preventing or discouraging the Civil War, and Nixon and Reagan had severe problems handling people who didn't march along with their drumbeating.

      What else is new? Trump can't take people who resist him very well, and he can't even fathom the noxious racism he allows to fester, so what, we should pretend not to notice?

    33. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mate, 4chan didn't make Pepe a fake hate symbol. Their (or your) actions made Pepe a genuine hate symbol. You can call spreading hate speech "trolling" if you like, but it's still hate speech and will be called out as such.

      And none of this "fooled" the main stream media. They reported on actual real events as they unfolded in real life. You might have caused those events, but they certainly were not fake. And yes, real life includes social media.

      You might believe your fascist cavorting online is merely performative and so no harm is done, but when real people brush up against your performance they only see a Nazi.

      In other words, you have it exactly backwords. In Real Life you are a genuine actual Nazi, it is only your online alterego that is a harmless prankster. Have fun you destructive little shit.

    34. Re:More by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Why? Did she turn Pepe into a hate symbol?

    35. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Alt-Right gets all its needed publicity from the Left going nuts over it.

      Political Version of Streisand Effect. By publicizing how awful it is, you're given them more publicity than if everyone simply ignored them. Good Job

      Isn't it funny that the Left is so stupid they don't realize this? There are two illuminatis now motherfuckers and one reigns in the world where money can't buy jack shit.

    36. Re: More by murdocj · · Score: 1

      And guess what? The Nazis perverted the Swastika. It was an ancient Indian religious symbol before Hitler picked up on it. Out of your own mouth you prove yourself wrong.

    37. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moronic nazi faggot waxes philosophmoric, news at 11

    38. Re: More by AvitarX · · Score: 4, Informative

      The ADL said (unless it changed) that people were using Pepe for bad things, but that he was popular in general.

      it said to use the context to make your determination. all the ADL was comment that he was being used as you were using him, but that he was not a hateful context free and to use your brain.

      It was an accurate one paragraph description that would inform someone trying to figure out what this from in a storm trooper uniform was.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    39. Re: More by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      it clarifies that because Pepe is popular, all types use Pepe.

      https://www.adl.org/education/...

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    40. Re:More by hey! · · Score: 1

      You're being naive if you think trolling like this isn't political.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    41. Re: More by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Hysteria? Check. Guilt by association? Check. Coercion? Check.

      Your cultural purity policing is advancing steadily. Have you been studying the methods of the Islamic religious police? Are you all set to become the next Roy Cohn?

      ... doing nothing just makes you complicit ...

      So, you're saying "you are either with us or with the terrorists"?

    42. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another reason to despise Hilary and the ADL.

      You nazis are just blaming Hillary and the ADL for something that the frog's creator found repulsive?

    43. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no, what are you going to do? Read more of their racist nonsense? Embrace their like-minded bigotry?

      Why don't you threaten to huff paint and lick toads? That'll teach us.

    44. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried to mod you up but it would seem the mod trolls are out today.

    45. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, you associate with Nazis, and their anti-Semitism, their pseudo-science, and their war-mongering aggression, you are in fact, guilty of associating with a bunch of criminal fascist bigots who are responsible for a multitude of atrocities. Who themselves are and were prone to hysteria and rigorous in enforcing conformity. It was their stock in trade.

      The same applies to ISIS, Christian Dominionists, Sovereign Citizens, Lost Cause apologists and whoever else you choose to share your cloak.

      Pretending they aren't noxious rotting plagues on humanity whose poisonous infections need to be purged is the hallmark of fools and liars.

      You want to be their fellow traveler? That's your sin, not mine. I will not be punished because you choose strange bedfellows.

    46. Re: More by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      How do you know Nicki isn't on 4chan? Because Nicki is entertaining.

    47. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Pepe meme was some fucking brilliant false flag shit. Even today I still struggle to explain to idiots what happened. They are all convinced that white supremacists got together and used this stupid frog meme for nefarious purposes. Takes all of 3 seconds for a sane person to realize that makes no damn sense. What's just mind blowing is the number of real alt-right people who have jumped on thinking their peers are really into this shit.

      4chan trolled the entire fucking world, and years later we'll still be arguing about this. This is the power that the fucking idiots of the world cede to those willing to use it. Feel free to think of Pepe as a scientific experiment that proves why clickbait and fake news are effective on the masses.

      You're all a bunch of tools and you should be ashamed of yourself. Left, "alt-right", center, doesn't matter, fucking tools.

    48. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Like that obama was not born in the USA, or is a secret muslim.

      Things you learn: The Hillary camp were the ones who claimed Obama wasn't born in the USA. Obama himself claimed he was a muslim.

    49. Re:More by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      The mainstream media is absolutely retarded and when they see a bunch of Twitter posts about something they jump on it and run with it.

      They may have looked like teh fools, but they got teh ratings. Mission accomplished.

    50. Re: More by Megol · · Score: 1

      Wrong and wrong. How about not posting bullshit?

    51. Re: More by Megol · · Score: 1

      It was a symbol used all over the world for both religious and other purposes (like just depicting the sun or being a nice symmetric figure). But you are right that the
      Nazis took it from India.

    52. Re:More by Megol · · Score: 1

      And here I have no mod points :(

    53. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homophobic leftists, bugger them all in the boipuccy.

    54. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama attended a madrasa and claimed to be Kenyan in his college papers. OFC people are going to wonder. Great counter argument you made though. Good talk.

    55. Re: More by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      4chan had no such intent. They did it for the lols. 4chan does everything for the lols. It's the whole point!

    56. Re: More by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Tell us, how does it feel to use a useful idiot? Some alt-right troll's tool, high on kool-aid?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    57. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tremendous use of Trump's logic when he blames the press for exposing his lies. MAGA!

    58. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a doctrine of the attractive nuisance. I wonder if we could apply the same thing to criminalise feeding the trolls.

      Note, if you read into the article, you'll see it's really difficult to get charged with an attractive nuisance offense. They have to prove you are doing it knowingly; they have to prove you could have done something cheaply to fix the problem. The equivalent protections would ensure there was no risk to freedom of expression.

    59. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it is a very large room, and they stand out as the asshole, that is actually quite a feat. There is a whole lot of competition for that spot.

    60. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You *failed* at grammar. FTFY.

    61. Re: More by Highdude702 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you people are insane. EVERYTHING anybody thats not anti trump hillary lovers do you refer to nazi-ism. dont you realize YOURE acting like the real nazis? its plainly easy to see..

    62. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      knew it wouldnt be long before the biggest douche on slashdot showed up to put his worthless 2 cents in...

    63. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You idiot.
       
      You're exactly the kind of person they're attempting to troll into believing that there are a bunch of guys in white hoods posting pictures of green frogs. The fact that it succeeds in convincing people that there are all these Nazis on Twitter makes me believe humanity is irredeemable...

    64. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Left, right, all I see are idiots trying to blame someone else for their troubles. The only difference is the colour of their racist scapegoat.

    65. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Politifact says: "pants on fire"

    66. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some details:

      "Madrassa" is an Arabic word for "school,"

      So yeah, the Harvard graduate did attend school. The monster. I bet he's driven an automÃvil and even occasionally looked at a schmetterling.

      The monster.

    67. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      The people blaming Jews for all their problems and implicitly or explicitly demanding action against the Jews are acting like Nazis.

      To claim anyone acting against such a group is really the one acting like a Nazi is absurd in the extreme.

    68. Re:More by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      I'm British I've never heard of Pepe the Frog. My immediate thought was some kind of French Cuisine :D

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    69. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "alt right" didn't do anything.

      Uhh, wrong. Richard Spencer, alt-right leader and president of the NPI, was wearing a Pepe pin when he got punched in the face.

    70. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW. You really don't get it do you? YOU'RE the reason,

      No, we don't get it.
      And your explanation is left wanting, to say the least.
      I still say the one that deliberately makes people feel bad is the bad person. Please try to explain and convince us of your view.

    71. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pepe is dead!!! Long Live Pepe!!!

    72. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know Nicki isn't on 4chan?
      Because Nicki is entertaining.

      I think its more because she is not a adolescent boy?

    73. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4chan trolled the entire fucking world, and years later we'll still be arguing about this.

      World? Hehe... not quite. This is first time I see this frog. And I've been into "memes" even before meme meant a jpg-image.
      'Feels good, man' is a familiar slogan. But not this frog.

      You're all a bunch of tools and you should be ashamed of yourself. Left, "alt-right", center, doesn't matter, fucking tools.

      Don't forget 4chan'ers!

    74. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or??? Your wrong. Know nothing about hitler and nazi's. Hmm, who was hitlers daddy again??? Was mommy a rothchild maid before he was born? Hmm, who financed this guy again??? Who divided the world up for his sons to cause the very hate your spewing about this??? Love that divider, lets them keep you under control if you feel your better than everyone else... etc. etc... How about your forfathers, who were WHITE Europeans, created virtually everything you have and lead to this very point. But pay no attention to this, tell me more about nazi's.

        So in the end, you literally all need to go do research, right now your swimming in the Pool filled with Lies. Tied down by Tax Slavery and Usury, your running around attacking those that realize this. Your food is intentionally toxic, your vaccines are using mercury and aluminium for (((preservative))) , your water is filled with poison, and you brush your teeth with stuff that damages your brain.
        But please attack the Pepe!

    75. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You might believe your fascist cavorting online is merely performative and so no harm is done, but when real people brush up against your performance they only see a Nazi.

      Actually what happens is that people laugh at my stupid cavorting and cringe at your use of the word Nazi, antifabro. How's Berkeley these days?

    76. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you kids sure got some ego. But if what you say is true, of course it's fully deserved. We're all just lucky you're so much smarter than everyone else, so you can teach us all lessons we're too dumb to realise for ourselves. And all while cleverly disguised as /b/tards. Genius! Your analysis above of what "really" is going on, because you were "a part of it", currently modded 5-insightful makes me weep. But that's slashdot for you. We aren't so smart over here. But thank goodness we have folks like you to woke us. Yep, you sure "get it".

    77. Re:More by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Yes folks, it's the "it was just harmless banter" argument writ large.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    78. Re: More by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Dramatic storytelling? Check. Hysteria - Check check check.

      Maybe go see a psychiatrist. Balanced mentally healthy people don't feel beset on all sides by dramatic villains and enemies of righteousness. They don't spend their days obsessively telling themselves those sorts of stories.

    79. Re:More by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that you liberals, leftists, or whatever you call yourself has essentially removed all meaning from the word nazi that existed before 2015.. Now nazi means somebody that doesn't think the exact way I do. Therefor you are now a nazi since our thought pattern does not align. Thank you. That is all.

    80. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate crime hoaxes listed and referenced.

    81. Re:More by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The "alt-right" (which itself is just a label the media tries to apply in an attempt to attack people and groups)

      Uh no. Alt-right is a self-applied label. The media is complicit in using it to describe groups which are better described simply as hate groups or nazis. Alternative right is what the white is right crowd is calling themselves now because they've hung up their bedsheets and wear suits full time.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    82. Re: More by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      no one on the right is doing that. its the left who are attacking Israel remember?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    83. Re:More by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      WRONG.jpg

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    84. Re: More by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I know; I used it correctly. You failed at trolling.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    85. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its a magnum opus of pathetic fat virgin morons like you, who have no life, and are so bitter and twisted, they think this is an acheivement. In fact, all they have done is shit in their own nests.
      Youre just a juvenille nutjob.

    86. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've switched to "fascist" now, since all President Trump had to do to break the "Hitler" and "Nazi" label was, well, not be Hitler, and everyone was laughing at them for calling everyone to the right of Stalin Nazis.

      Fascist also is a great bone to throw at the Antifa / BAMN types. Plays into their whole "lets start murdering people on the right, we'll stop when they're too afraid to ever speak against us again" mindset.

    87. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "they are nearly as stupid as the guy who showed up at a Pizza parlor because of 'Pizzagate'"

      Except that Pizzagate is real. Elite pedophile rings are real. The cover-up of these by mainstream (fake) news media is real.

      Wake up. The guy who showed up at the pizza shop did the wrong thing (bring a gun to a public place) for the right reasons (to protect innocent children from sadistic slimebags).

    88. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, look, Mike the RWNJ cunt is using his sock puppets to mod himself up as usual.
      Nobody cares what you think Mike, fuck off.

    89. Re: More by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      GP was telling the truth. Go find the archived 4chan threads of them strategizing this shit in real time as it happened.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    90. Re: More by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      Slashdot needs a -1 "non sequitur"

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    91. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah you can take this crap back to at least 2000 and the W presidency which was when leftists really started morphing en masse into a bunch of fainting-couch drama queens with a case of terminal Stage 4 butt-hurt.

    92. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I could not agree more.

      Folks like to pretend that "chan culture" allows them to pretend that "I was just joking" and "I was just trolling" are some magic get-out-of-reponsibility-for-your-actions spell. That spell doesn't work on the rest of the world, however, because IT DOESN'T MATTER if you were joking or trolling. You are responsible for your words, even if your were joking or trolling. Suck it up & take your lumps, channers, you earned it.

    93. Re: More by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The most racist nonsense I have read , comes from do-good liberals saying basically "blacks can't help themselves". From wearing their pants down around their knees, to rioting over black cops not letting criminals go free, to shooting each other in Chicago, to learning in school.

      I just saw a white feminist liberal arguing with black men about something, where she was completely wrong, and they called her Racist, and she freaked out. The problem with Racism, is that when you categorize people by race, and make excuses for what people of that race are suffering culturally, you're the damn racist. Me personally, hate to see strong black people taking a back seat of the liberal bus, all because that is what is expected of them.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    94. Re: More by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      First I've ever heard of Pepe, and I'm involved in partisan politics to the point that I believe the SPLC and the ADL are racist hate groups, and that the Republicans are fiscal Libertines, and that the Democrats are sexual libertines and that the whole country is going to hell.

      What was this Boys Club anyway, some sort of misogynist comic strip?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    95. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From Wikipedia:
      The same month, the two sources for Nuzzi's Daily Beast article revealed to The Daily Caller that they had coordinated beforehand to mislead Nuzzi (particularly about the existence of a campaign) under the expectation that she would uncritically repeat what she was told, with one saying, "Basically, I interspersed various nuggets of truth and exaggerated a lot of things, and sometimes outright lied — in the interest of making a journalist believe that online Trump supporters are largely a group of meme-jihadis who use a cartoon frog to push Nazi propaganda. Because this was funny to me."[

      So, yeah, Trolling the Trolls.

    96. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good old Politifact that will admit something is 100% true but says it is a lie because they don't like what is being implied. It is more DNCfact than anything else.

    97. Re:More by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      So why is it that you ADL types are so anti-Israel, but the alt-right is so pro-Israel?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    98. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of retarded, I take it you didn't read Politifact's reporting of the supposed pants-on-fire lie;

      A damning memo?

      The Sept. 15 Trump campaign statement linked to a 2007 strategy memo published in the Atlantic from former Clinton aide Mark Penn that advises pointing out Obama’s "lack of American roots."

      While Penn suggests Clinton "own ‘American’ in our programs," that’s not the same thing as suggesting Clinton question Obama’s citizenship or birthplace. The memo never advises that.

      It also explicitly states, "We are never going to say anything about his background."

      Furthermore, as the Atlantic and Politico reported in 2008, neither Clinton nor her campaign acted on Penn’s advice.

      A not-damning chain email

      The other piece of "evidence" linking Clinton to birtherism are emails circulated by supporters of Clinton during the last days of the 2008 Democratic primary after Clinton suspended her campaign.

      According to a Telegraph article, Clinton supporters circulated the "birther" theory in an email as early as April 2008.

      "Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy," the email said, according to the Telegraph. "She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth."

      The allegations gained momentum that month. Clinton conceded the race on June 7, and three days later a website called Pumaparty.com (an acroynom for Party Unity My A--) encouraged Clinton backers to support Republican nominee Sen. John McCain.

      The website promoted the theory with an email that read, "Obama May Be Illegal to Be Elected President," as Daily Beast editor John Avlon has documented.

      According to Avlon, Linda Starr, a Clinton volunteer in Texas, was key to spreading the rumor. She connected with with Philip Berger, an attorney and Clinton supporter, who sued to block Obama’s nomination. The suit was thrown out.

      But this is not the same thing as Clinton or her campaign promoting the theory. There is no evidence that they ever have done so. Clinton has dismissed the allegation when Trump made his accusation last September in an interview with CNN’s Don Lemon.

    99. Re: More by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Why is it then that Democrats are anti-Israel and Republicans are pro-Israel?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    100. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People on 4chan don't like their memes becoming main stream.

      When that happens they like to ruin them for everyone. It's the Internet's equivalent to taking your ball and going home.

      Basic child psychology covers this, why the retarded left decided the answer was Nazis everywhere is fucking beyond me.

      I guess they needed to "invent" a scapeNazi to blame all of their failures on.

    101. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you haven't seen the hillolis yet.

    102. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, psychiatrists spend a considerable amount of effort getting people to recognize the abusive and manipulative people in their lives, including the gaslighting bullies who try to make you think you're crazy for standing up to them.

      After all, the first ting that the Secessionists, the Nazis, the Penn State Frat boys did, was claim they were the persecuted victims.

      Tell me, why are you wringing your hands so much over it? Don't you want to respect our freedom to say no?

    103. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't have a Moral Authority without a high horse to ride in on, and it takes a while to get him saddled.

    104. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was also wearing shoes!
      OMG! Hate Shoes!

    105. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Useful Idiot"-

      Your communism/Marxism is showing... Get out of my country you commie pinko POS

    106. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol?

    107. Re: More by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      You really confuse me sometimes. One minute you say some off the wall far left stuff, then the next day come back to reality with something that actually makes sense. I'm going to have to re-evaluate my thoughts on you.

    108. Re: More by nyri · · Score: 1

      Thank you for writing this. The whole "Pepe is hate symbol" got to be the fakest news of 2016.

    109. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone knows boys can't have clubs. The only club allowed is the "Heman Woman Hater Club".

      That's HWHC. Our membership is filled with little rascals.

    110. Re: More by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Tell me, why are you wringing your hands so much over it?

      Because you're bullying people and making life worse for everyone. Telling you to step back from the edge, be sane, and try to stop making yourself and everyone around you miserable -- it's not like it takes a lot of effort. Maybe someone reading this will decide not to follow you down the rabbit hole.

    111. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you use a picture of a frog along with HATE speech attached to those memes, you are spewing hate speech. Even if it's a joke,'it is still hate speech. That's what you are not getting. You guys may have teamed up to spread the fake peppy narrative, but in doing so you made yourselves look like a bunch of racist assholes. Even if you aren't racist, you made everyone think you were. Great accomplishment.

      Your mothers must be proud.

    112. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because republicans want that oil money. Duh.

    113. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, EVERYONE is standing up now claiming they're persecuted victims. It's the only label you're allowed to fly anymore.
      I bet the Avon lady, excuse me, Avon Person, rides around complaining about all the evil things Mary Kay has done to her since the beginning of time.

    114. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Jew? Subverting something? This is a historical first!

    115. Re: More by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Basic child psychology covers this, why the retarded left decided the answer was Nazis everywhere is fucking beyond me.

      I have noticed on this site mainly, and some places on IRC. the only ones that spew that garbage are the ones that arent smart enough to see the real issues and just go off of feelings and how their peers tell them to feel. its become a sad time when 50% of the US cant think or feel for their self. Also the same ones screaming about how its bad to be an extremist.. are the ones with the extreme behavior.

    116. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but making the lives of the racist bigots of the Nazi party worse is rather the point. Same with the rest of their ilk.

      Of course, they claim they're being bullied. Always. That's the way they behave, proclaiming that they're the victims of so much persecution, don't you just feel sorry for them. It's how they get you to throw them a rope so they can climb out of the hole they've been buried in.

      Then, of course, they'll give you a swift kick as they toss you in.

      Such is the way of the scorpion.

    117. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that you liberals, leftists, or whatever you call yourself has essentially removed all meaning from the word nazi that existed before 2015.. Now nazi means somebody that doesn't think the exact way I do. Therefor you are now a nazi since our thought pattern does not align. Thank you. That is all.

      This leftist knows exactly what a nazi is, and alt-right, Dick Spencer hangers on, are the epitome of it.

    118. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now? It's not a new tactic at all. Age-old. Pretty common card to play, and not especially unique. As I said, they've been doing it for CENTURIES. Ancient Greece and Rome, probably Sumeria and Egypt. It's been flown throughout history. If you're thinking it's new, or the only one, then you're mistaken.

      But if you're going to bring up Direct Sales entities, which are indeed, deeply suspicious, don't forget the most malignant of them all, Amway. Quite exploitative and very dangerous. But of course, we daren't say a thing, we shouldn't identify those fraudsters at all. They're just poor innocent folk, never meaning no harm.

    119. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny, because I don't recall the media freaking out about an alien invasion when the white house was blown up in 1996. Oh wait! That's because it was a fictional even that was broadcast in the form of a movie called Independence Day.

      The media was quite capable of figuring out that was a work of fiction because it was quite clearly labeled as such. Unfortunately, modern media outlets are in such a hurry to sell news that they rarely bother to check facts.

      Pepe-as-a-hate-symbol was a series of dramatic presentations across many media. It was no more hate-speech than Independence Day was an act of terrorism.

      The media has made the same mistake MANY times with false reports of celebrity deaths like Robert Redford, Carlos Santana, Paul McCartney, and Jackie Chan, or the false news that United Airlines was bankrupt in 2008 that wiped out $250M in share value in a single day.

      Yes, this is absolutely the fault of the lulz, but ONLY because a bunch of media half-wits couldn't bother to check ACTUAL facts causing other media half-wits to report on it without checking the accuracy of what they were reporting on causing more people to spread the news via social media, in turn generating more news reports and creating the appearance of validating the original reporter's reports, because if everyone says something it must be true, right?

    120. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah you can take this crap back to at least 2000 and the W presidency which was when leftists really started morphing en masse into a bunch of fainting-couch drama queens with a case of terminal Stage 4 butt-hurt.

      Fighting for human rights isn't being "butt-hurt", being butt-hurt is running away from a reporter like Rod Blum did--that's butt-hurt.

      Butt hurt is also getting your ass called on the carpet for being a fucking bigot and not being allowed to impose your racist-homophobit-religous bullshit on other people and crying about being repressed; and you Ayn Rand worshiping social darwinists who call yourselves republicans and libertarians have been being crying about being repressed when in reality you're the once doing the repressing.

      Make America Great again? No you don't want the pre-Reagan tax structure, you just want to undo all the progressive activities since the 1890s.

    121. Re: More by Dread_ed · · Score: 2

      In the context of speech, no one can make you feel bad. You have to do that to yourself. The entire world as you perceive it exists only in your mind. Your subjective experience, your meta thought analysis of the sensory perceptions you receive, is mutable primarily by your own thought and analysis.

      If you read something and are offended, you take the responsibility of that offense. You did it to yourself. You, ion your infinite ignorance, created the offense.

      So, in a very roundabout way, you just said that you are a bad person. I think we can agree on this.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    122. Re: More by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      It's not that he's that smart. It's just that some groups of people are incredibly easy to predict because of how they have designed their rules of interaction with "offensive" subjects.

      There were so many examples of what they had done to white men, Christians, and republicans that it was easy to perform a gedankenerfahrung and determine the results of a targeted meme injection.

      They called their shot and it worked. This says very little about those that designed the meme and speaks volumes about the group they were targeting.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    123. Re: More by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Because the things that the "parties" tell you to think, the messages that they frame in every utterance, are inconsistency incarnate. They can't make sense on close inspection, otherwise they would not be able to fracture the population into warring ideologies. Irrationality is a prerequisite for partisanship. Same for compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance. Logic is strictly forbidden.

      Just remember, whenever someone says there are two sides to an issue they have been so thoroughly brainwashed that they can only see what they have been programmed to see and the inverse image of that programming. They can never acknowledge something outside of their own programmed presuppositions, other than the inevitable antithesis of their position. They exist, intellectually, on a single line with every thought of their own balanced by "the other side" with equal but opposite positions. That something could approach from a different angle, or that there is a way to encompass both positions in another one, or that you could think around or above the current impasse is completely alien to them.

      This is just another reason why partisanship is a manufactured mental handicap. Don't expect it to make sense unless you reject it first. Once you are outside the system things become much clearer.

      Questions are powerful things. They induce thought into new directions, if properly phrased. They can reveal bias, unearth deep ignorance, strip the ego, and propel creativity. If used as part of a tautology, as your was, they merely propagate and perpetuate ignorance of the truth. The assumptions inherent in the question invalidate the usefulness of the answer.

      The reason why is not the right question. Why is irrelevant. "What is the purpose" is much closer to the mark. "What is there to gain in taking this particular set of actions and publicizing them in this certain way" is even closer to the mark. Me, I just ask "why would anyone willingly participate in such a crazy, destructive, divisive, disempowering sham as the two party system?"

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    124. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, don't you racists hate the idea that a black man went to school?

    125. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh (((really)))? Nobody on the right (((ever))) blames the (((Jews))) for anything?

      My mistake. (((Clearly))) I was (((mistaken))).

    126. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you not remember the 2008 campaign, or do you think no one else does?

      Also, Obama says he's a muslim is technically correct, which is the only kind of correct. If you say the Shahada in front of two muslim witnesses, you are a muslim, by the muslim definition. Obama almost certainly did when he was being raised in Indonesia.

    127. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and on the other other hand, no one would have heard of that frog or that he hates Jews if the media hadn't run with it

      and now closet Nazis like me have a plausibly deniable symbol for each other

      and there's nothing you can do about it

      you sad little loser

    128. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You lost any credibility you had by calling someone else a fascist because they have a different opinion than you. Go back to your safe space libby!

    129. Re:More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sad trombone ... wagh wagh wagh!

    130. Re: More by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but making the lives of the racist bigots of the Nazi party worse is rather the point. Same with the rest of their ilk.

      You're making life worse for anyone who believes your delusions. You're assigning guilt to those you perceive as different than you and issuing threats.

      Of course, they claim they're being bullied.

      Intimidating people (for example, by using threats, like you are doing) is the dictionary definition of bullying. So yeah, whoever these people are may correctly perceive the fact of what you're doing.

      You should talk to a psychiatrist. If you really believe a psychiatrist will tell you you're healthy, then there's no reason not to. But healthy people don't see enemies everywhere, like you do. Unlike you, mentally healthy people don't think they're on a righteous mission that involves seeking out and punishing people who have different beliefs,

    131. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its become a sad time when 50% of the US cant think or feel for their self.

      It's probably closer to 90%. By Sturgeon's Revelation, this may be the way it's always been to some extent, but at the same time, there's never been more money in encouraging people to think and feel certain things.

      On all sides.

    132. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How long do you have to use something "for the lulz" before you accidently adopted it and actually altered the context of it?

      How long before you've gone from contributing to a manipulation to being manipulated?

      You do what you do to seem contrarian, but in the end you're attempting to dictate the conversation, and it is having an undeniably real effect. Take responsibility for your actions - don't set a forest on fire and then blame the wood for reacting all hot-and-burning-like.

    133. Re: More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry Kohath, rather than what you claim to be seeing enemies everywhere, I see my enemies in the Neo-Nazi Rallies, the White Supremacist Churches and the ISIS madrasses. That's in particular places, where they really exist. And yes, they are guilty of what they've done. Riots. Armed assaults. Bombings. Beheadings. Lynchings. Holocaust Denial. Slavery admiration. Bogus Liens.

      That's the point, when you actually believe things like they do, and actually act like they do, that's called reality. They do exist.

      You should talk to an English teacher, apparently you have a problem with reading comprehension. People who can comprehend the words of others don't think that someone is saying one thing, and erroneously claim they're saying another.

      Or possibly get your eyes checked. That can cause issues too. I think you might have a log stuck in yours. Of course, if you are using a screen reader, then you should get your ears checked. Have you ever been on Ceti Alpha V? Those worms can get in your ears. Also your nose. I think you may have breathing issues. Have you ever been around crayons?

    134. Re: More by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I was unaware they had discovered oil in the Golan Heights. That explains a lot actually.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    135. Re: More by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      And oddly enough I got a reasonable, if a bit strange, answer: Golan Heights Oil Fields.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  2. Oh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And no one really gave a shit.

    1. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't really think that those who hijacked Pepe will care what his creator does with him, do you?

  3. Drawing more attention to Pepe by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Drawing more attention to a meme isn't really the best way to kill it off. Now it's all Jesus-motif Pepes.

    It's not easy being green.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    1. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by penandpaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If only there were a celebrity example of trying to suppress information online which in effect draws more attention to said information. That way we could give it a clever name as a warning to other... Oh, wait.

      Pepe died for your memes to be dank.

    2. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He's not trying to kill the meme, he's trying to kill his association with it

    3. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only people that want pepe dead are those on the left who continue to push that a meme from 2008 is a "hate symbol." FYI that's fake news. And said bullshit of it being a hate symbol was nothing but a troll by an individual to screw with the absolute lack of fact checking by the media. It's no different then people trolling the media that the following things are also hate symbols: OK gesture. White milk. The entire American Sign Language, among other things. If anything people have simply had enough and decided to crash the media with no survivors. I wish them the best, and may kek be with them.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      may kek be with you and your memes be dank.

    5. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only people that want pepe dead are those on the left who continue to push that a meme from 2008 is a "hate symbol." FYI that's fake news.

      The left made careless accusations of "white nationalism", fabricating a "movement" based on unsubstantiatied claims made by two random guys. These sorts of false accusations harm the lives of innocent people such as Matt Furie. But I don't understand the following: Why doesn't the conservative establishment fight back?

      Why doesn't FOX News try to dispell the left's fake news? Why don't prominent conservative individuals call out the unsubstantiatied claims? Why is the Daily Caller the only organization that's covering this story? Why do the conservatives seem so willing to let the left make insane accusations and harm people like Matt Furie?

    6. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why was this post modded -1? What was wrong with it?

    7. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because slashdot is now filled with moronic millennials who think that everything must be black and white or left and right. There is no between. You really can't blame them. Their white parents didn't teach them. The schools didn't educate them. The system failed them altogether. In 10 years or less, they will realize this. They will be pissed. They will revolt. We just have to wait. Unfortunately, some of us are going to be screwed by the generations above and below us. My retirement plan is a six shooter to the head.

    8. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, in a very real way it was the left that elected Trump. This is the glorious reality and irony of the whole thing. I love republican and liberal tears, but I really love the crybaby liberal tears the most.

    9. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Jzanu+Syr · · Score: 0

      You mean the author of the comic and creator illustrator who had legal rights that were ignored and so chose not to reward that by devaluing it, and you are magically blaming the "left"? You are retarded!

    10. Re: Drawing more attention to Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kys

    11. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pepe is considered a hate symbol because if you go over to 4chan's /pol board right this very moment you will find a huge number anti-Semitic, racist and and hate-mongering memes featuring him. 4chan users use Pepe as an image macro, a short-hand for far right political views that are mainly defined by a hatred of almost anyone non-white. In fact, a common question on /pol, so common in fact that the pinned first post warns about asking it, is if a certain group is "white", since all non-whites are degenerate in their eyes.

      Don't take my word for it, go to 4chan's /pol right now and check for yourself. NSFW, obviously.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      No matter how many times you say things, it doesnt make it true just because you've said them.

      I'm not even going to begin to point out the errors this time, but I have a history of trivially pointing out your lack of both knowledge and logic... by simply quoting you. Think about that for awhile.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    13. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Funny

      "I could produce a great argument, but I'm not going to bother so just assume I made one, okay?"

      Keeping up to your usual standards I see.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      That part where you don't even understand the basics of chan culture. I'm not sure what's funnier, that you continue to parrot bullshit over and over and over again. Or that you seem to believe it. Whether it's "gamergate is full of misogynist neckbeards" supporting Sarkeesian the idiot that believes demurely dressed Elizabeth Comstock is "sexualized" or the "pepe is a hate symbol." Thanks for explaining and showing everyone what a normie is though.

      Gonna be a real blow when you find out that those "white supremacists" are actually black, asian, and so on like so many times in the past. That the vast majority of what you see is to simply drive people like you into a "OMG THE WHITE SUPREMACISITS R EVRAYWARE!" and away from /pol/ /b/ and so on. You know, kinda like that person who called in bomb threats against synagogues in the US was an Israeli-American citizen, living in Israel, and Israel just refused to extradite him. Or one of those multiple big name anti-gamergate people have been arrested, charged with rape, have multiple claims of sexual assault, or even one of the big anti-GG reporters was charged with 8 counts of bomb threats against jewish centers. And according to the FBI there hasn't been a single case linked to any member of gamergate...at all.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    15. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Or one of those multiple big name anti-gamergate people have been arrested, ...

      Because when you reread something twice and edit something to break a link.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    16. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize your "argument" is of the same caliber as theirs, right?

    17. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the author of the comic and creator illustrator who had legal rights that were ignored and so chose not to reward that by devaluing it,

      I don't understand what you're saying. What "legal rights" are you referring to? Who ignored those rights? What was being rewarded? What was being devalued?

    18. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'm not even going to begin to point out the errors this time

      Why not?

      Saying "you're always wrong about everything" isn't a terribly convincing argument.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    19. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Mashiki, your rant doesn't actually address the point that by simply examining /pol at any given time you can find all the evidence you need to understand why this conclusion was reached.

      By the way, still not going to enter a moderated, public debate with me? You pick the topic.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Highdude702 · · Score: 2

      Who used it first? Oh that would your dear supreme leader Hillary. You guys get worse by the day.

    21. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      He is one of the dumber ones only to be TRUMPED(lol) by billy gates. Who tries to lecture people on how computers and the Internet works without actually knowing how either work.

    22. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a bit of a fallacious argument.

      This is like saying communists use red and gold a lot, and if you go to communist websites they are all red and gold, so therefore anyone using red and gold is a communist.

      Sure, some people might genuinely think they can use it as a shorthand for hate, but at the same time there are plenty of people who just post it to get a rise out of others, because they find it amusing.

      Some racists post Pepe, but posting Pepe does not make one a racist.

    23. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      you do understand they are doing it specifically because it gets a rise out of people, not because they are actually racists right?

      I expect better from slashdot readers

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    24. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and also with you

    25. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No one gives a shit about the "basics of chan culture". If you espouse shitty things, you get called out as someone who says shitty things. No one cares if you're "joking" or "trolling" or only doing it for the "kek". You are responsible for your words, your words are shitty, and you're being called out for it. Live with that, or stop behaving that way.

    26. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by penandpaper · · Score: 2

      Um, it really can be explained by "reaction pics". Pepe is a template for reaction and memes.

      An eagle is not racist for being a part of nazi imagery. Intent and Context matter.

    27. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      there is a HUGE difference between the following

      I hate people of (insert race here)

      and

      people get their jimmies ruffled by X - so lets spread X for the lulz

      if people can be that easily manipulated that a cartoon frog is "racist" for no real reason other than a subset of people say so, it does nothing but prove what many of us have been saying for years and that is the term racism (and nazi) have lost all meaning due to being so vastly misused

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    28. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In a practical sense, if someone posts a Pepe meme along with "I hate Jews", what is the actual difference if they are doing it because they really hate Jews or because they just want to annoy people?

      Okay, the person posting it is a different kind of fuckwad in either case, but the message is the same, the effect on Jews is the same, and the actual racists reposting that stuff on Facebook don't care...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    29. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      The right ignores accusations and charges too often. I don't know if it's because they think if they don't feed them attention it'll just go away, or that they don't want to dignify them with a response, or if they're trying to take the high road, or if they just overestimate people's intelligence, or if they're just that deep in a echo chamber, or they're afraid of saying the wrong thing and making it worse; but they kinda suck at defense PR, especially since GW Bush's term.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    30. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Jzanu+Syr · · Score: 0

      God damn you are stupid. The creator of the character killed it so that the degraded and unlicensed misuse of its image wouldn't be given tacit support.

    31. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is just so wrong....I"m having a hard time getting my head around a cogent reply.
      It's like someone telling me a fashion model is smart because she's wearing glasses.

    32. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /pol/ is not all of 4chan. /pol/ is just one section out of many boards.

      I can tell tell you that despite /pol/ grabbing all the media attention it is not representative of all of 4chans political leanings. I can tell you that most of 4chan's boards are sick of /pol/s bullshit and they need to stop fucking injecting their beligerent political arguments into every damn thread. We regularly have images about /pol/ being fetal ass sucking retards rolling over discussion like a plague of tumbleweeds whenever they come onto other boards and try to start a political shit fit and derail the thread. MOST of 4chan uses Pepe as a smug character or as a counterpoint/companion to Wojak the "I know that feel" man, where they are off again on again partners or enemies of feeling depressed about social awkwardness, loneliness, etc.

      We call /pol/ a containment board for a reason. Same as we did with bronies.

    33. Re: Drawing more attention to Pepe by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      no

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    34. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree completely, but the fact that Matt Furie killed his character to prevent it from being misused is not disputed. Instead, the point that we are making is that Pepe wasn't associated with white nationalism until Olivia Nuzzi wrote an irresponsible article claiming that Pepe was symbol of white nationalism. Her article was based almost entirely on the word of some random guy on the internet (JaredTSwift).

      If it weren't for Nuzzi fabricating a white nationalist conspiracy based on the word of a single, unreliable individual, it is likely that Pepe never would have been associated with white nationalism.

      Nuzzi created the problem. You can read her article here:

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/26/how-pepe-the-frog-became-a-nazi-trump-supporter-and-alt-right-symbol.html

    35. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or thinking a circled "K" (kosher pareve) on the label of a bottle of Snapple meant "KKK". Or thinking the picture of a ship on the label was a slave ship, when it was an (already-existing, archived) drawing of the Boston Tea Party.

    36. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you dont get satire? Huh. I bet you must love comedians like Monty Python!

    37. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      In other words, you don't get it. You don't see that it's not a rant, but a statement either.

      The public debate happens every time we cross, those posts modded up or down are the reaction. You still don't get that either do you.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    38. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      When Ben Garrison get's it and you don't. Small background note: Ben was targeted by 4chan, particularly by /pol/ got upset, embraced it, is loved by legions of people of and not of chan culture.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    39. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      So what is it about having a formal, moderated debate that scares you? Slashdot doesn't count, it's not a formal debate platform and the moderation is extremely partisan.

      Pick a topic.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    40. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a huge difference to you because you know what's going on in your mind. To an outside observer there is no difference.

    41. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why I make and spread anti-white male memes. You haven't seen a rise until you get death threats from angry perma-virgins who think they are the master race. There is nothing funnier than shattering fragile white male egos.

    42. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Does it matter if it came from a jew trying to get you mad? Is it really efficient for a Nazi to post a green frog to promote their brand of racism? I don't understand how someone posting literal satire that makes fun the medias lack of investigation promotes racism. If you were a serious racist/Nazi... Would you really appreciate your ideology/movement being made the butt of a joke?

    43. Re: Drawing more attention to Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it matter if it came from a jew trying to get you mad?

      The source of a message can matter, yes.

      Is it really efficient for a Nazi to post a green frog to promote their brand of racism?

      The term to use is effective, and yes, apparently it is.

      I don't understand how someone posting literal satire that makes fun the medias lack of investigation promotes racism. If you were a serious racist/Nazi... Would you really appreciate your ideology/movement being made the butt of a joke?

      Your own logic actually makes the media the butt of the joke. Notice what you said was being satirized, the media, not Nazis.

      But yes, some people could appreciate it, humor is often viewed through such a lens.

    44. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      So what is it about having a formal, moderated debate that scares you? Slashdot doesn't count, it's not a formal debate platform and the moderation is extremely partisan.

      Easy. I doubt people are willing to wait upto 2 weeks for a reply, which is roughly what it would be. What is it that scares you about actually staying on topic on something, and actually trying to counter points which are made? Oh /. doesn't count? Is that because moderation heavily skews towards the left, or is it because there's such a fundamental shift in perceptions against social justice something to which you vigorously support.

      Topic? Why are people like Jess Phillips allowed to use absolute falsehoods, lies and defamation in her defense of feminism and not held to account by the media. Rather that the media openly supports and parrots her lies.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    45. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy. I doubt people are willing to wait upto 2 weeks for a reply, which is roughly what it would be.

      Are you? Speak for yourself.

      What is it that scares you about actually staying on topic on something, and actually trying to counter points which are made?

      Are you? Speak for yourself.

      Oh /. doesn't count? Is that because moderation heavily skews towards the left, or is it because there's such a fundamental shift in perceptions against social justice something to which you vigorously support.

      Actually, it's quite clearly not accountable in any form.

      Topic? Why are people like Jess Phillips allowed to use absolute falsehoods, lies and defamation in her defense of feminism and not held to account by the media. Rather that the media openly supports and parrots her lies.

      Conditions applied to you, would be your contention that she is allowed to use absolute falsehoods, lies, and defamation (though that last would probably require further definition as to standards), and that the media openly supports and parrots her lies.

    46. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Debate.net is set up for this, people are used to waiting for responses.

      Why not at least try it? You seem scared of having to make a real argument rather than relying on your standard mix of rhetoric and links you hope no one will read.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    47. Re:Drawing more attention to Pepe by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      It's not my problem if a citation is given and you refuse to read it. All that does is show your intellectual cowardice, I'm still waiting to see when you'll actually respond to the actual stuff I made a statement on ~2 posts ago. When you can figure out how to respond to something, and read those citations and links that show something contrary to your view. Then I'll consider it. So get going, that challenge is laid out and waiting.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  4. Sad... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who else will Ms. Piggy cheat with to make Kermit the Frog jealous?

  5. Feels Bad Man by king+neckbeard · · Score: 5, Funny

    Feels Bad Man.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Feels Bad Man by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Writes witty reply.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  6. This will only embolden the Kekistanis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will only embolden the Kekistanis

  7. Except for one thing... by freeze128 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can't kill a cartoon character. You can drop an anvil on his head. You can slingshot him into a mountain. You can blow him up with TNT. All these things (and more) happen to a particular coyote, and yet every week, he still comes back. Maybe limping and wrapped in bandages, or blackened from the explosion, but alive nonetheless.

    1. Re:Except for one thing... by TWX · · Score: 1
      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Except for one thing... by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      You can't kill a cartoon character. You can drop an anvil on his head. You can slingshot him into a mountain. You can blow him up with TNT. All these things (and more) happen to a particular coyote, and yet every week, he still comes back. Maybe limping and wrapped in bandages, or blackened from the explosion, but alive nonetheless.

      Everyone in Toon Town knows how to kill a cartoon character - a solution of turpentine, acetone, and benzene.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    3. Re:Except for one thing... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's symbolic. The creator was reacting to both Macron's victory in France, which many on the far right seem to consider a huge loss. They thought that with Brexit and Trump they might be winning, but there has been a wave of rejection of populist and far right politics in Europe lately, which naturally they predict will result in the continent becoming an Islamic 3rd world country within a decade...

      More over, the creator of Pepe is saying he is giving up on the character. He can't be redeemed or recover from his association with the far right now. But maybe he can rest in peace, canonically dead.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  8. A sad loss. He will be missed. by Snufu · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dibs on the legs.

    1. Re:A sad loss. He will be missed. by penandpaper · · Score: 2

      Dubs for the legs.

      FTFY

  9. Furie should've by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    should've sold Pepe to Jerkcity as a cock-gobbling rent boy

  10. I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Are all Trump supporters scumbags or just the vast, vast majority?

    1. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not all of them are scumbags, some of them are douche bags.

    2. Re: I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go get worked up about Russia, cuck

    3. Re:I wonder by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      What, exactly, is a scumbag? Other than something i often hear television cops growling as they collar a bad guy?
      I mean, are there actually bags full of some sort of scum that someone once said "Hey, that'll make a good insult!"

    4. Re:I wonder by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      The online etymological dictionary is pretty good for this.

      "it was used in sugar refining as the name of a frame covered in coarse cloth used in straining."

      Also mentions that it was a term used for condoms by 1939. My guess is that the first people to use it didn't really care too much about what it meant, but felt the term that sounded suitably insulting.

  11. Re:Pepe isn't dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Good and don't come back.

    Nobody gives a flying fuck what you think.

  12. Boy's Club? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Boy's Club? Membership of one?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Boy's Club? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Boy's Club is like the Boys' Club but even more exclusive.

  13. Re:kek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF is a kek?

  14. Pepe will never die by Nicolas+Cage · · Score: 0

    This guy's just trying to exert control over something that's been out of his control for years. Nice try.

    1. Re:Pepe will never die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah that's okay the alt right has to steal because they can't come up with anything creative of their own. Ever notice how they also get in trouble for using music that wasnt theirs during campaigns as well.

      The alt right is what happens to people that are too stupid to contribute anything to society.

    2. Re:Pepe will never die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I mean...was there a single decent meme created by the left during the 16 election cycle? With the likes of Carl the Cuck and AIDS Skrillix, Low Energy Jeb etc, the left came up with uh...."Love Trumps Hate"....rofl. For supposed tech-savvy millennials, you guys really dropped the ball on the internets in 2016

    3. Re:Pepe will never die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think its funny you think im a millenial. Im gen X faggot!!

      This wasn't battle of the memes it was you ass pounders that thought it was okay to steal somebody's work and bastardize it for you own amazingly lame purposes.

    4. Re:Pepe will never die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The homophobic regressive left, everybody.

    5. Re:Pepe will never die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ironic thing about the alt-right is they are the very people dictators eliminate or otherwise marginalized once they are in power. They are useful idiots while ascending to power, but once in power you can't have people who are anti-authority around lest they turn on you. Hitler did it to the leadership of the brown shirts (see Night of the Long Knoves), Stalin to the partisans who fought the Nazis once the USSR captured the territory. Some of the masses may still be useful as they can be cowed but the free thinkers and leaders are dangerous to any established power. In Hitler's case, having thugs around was bad PR when trying to convince the masses he was their savior, and thus he eliminated them.

    6. Re:Pepe will never die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im gen X faggot!!

      Your claim to be gen X is dubious, but the rest of it I believe.

    7. Re:Pepe will never die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean...was there a single decent meme created by the left during the 16 election cycle? With the likes of Carl the Cuck and AIDS Skrillix, Low Energy Jeb etc, the left came up with uh...."Love Trumps Hate"....rofl. For supposed tech-savvy millennials, you guys really dropped the ball on the internets in 2016

      Truth,

      Even the at-a-glance-on-the-surface Pro-Hillary memes were cleverly disguised /pol and /r/the_donald campaigns, i.e. the Draft Our Daughters campaign was pure gold.

  15. fake news by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How is it fake? If a reporter interviews somebody who is lying that doesn't make the journalism fake. The story might end up being bad, but not fake. It's still good journalism if the lying is eventually exposed and the sources credibility is shattered forever, as happened in this case.

      Those technicalities aside. Fascist Pepe had been getting around long before the MSM got involved. The Don himself tweeted Pepe in October 2015 (check Know Your Meme). So an article claiming that it was all made up in an interview during May 2016 is exactly what we call fake news.

    2. Re:fake news by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      I agree a reporter can be mislead, the news itself is fake though

      Pepe has been used for anything and everything, even the anime/manga/LN hobby forums I frequent still has him. I'd post him here as cowboyneal if we had inline images

  16. Re: Pepe isn't dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do.

  17. Re:Pepe isn't dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do. Maybe you should leave.

  18. Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I certainly missed this meme.

    1. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too, I avoid the alt right fat virgin fucks at 4 chan, apart from their constant dribling spam on here. Dont even bother to mod them down, just look for the key words they always use, such as SJW, various piss poor attempts at insulting Mrs Clinton, and pathetic attemps at humour. ive met smarter housebricks.
      Its gonna be great fun when the dumb fucks realise exactly how hard Trump is screwing them. Thanks goodness I live in a cillised place, where people can pronounce Aluminium properly, everyone has decent health care and inbred assholes arent allowed guns.
      I love seeing mass shootings, a dead Amercan increases the worlds IQ, just wish the fuckers would shoot each other faster.

    2. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mrs. Clinton? What is she, your schoolteacher?
      Plus, "I love seeing mass shootings"???
      Hope you never need this again, smartypants:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  19. Re:Does killing a character release the copyright? by unimacs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe because he feels that Pepe has become a symbol of a collection of people whose beliefs he finds disturbing and he'd rather not profit by catering to them.

    Money isn't everything.

  20. Re:kek by penandpaper · · Score: 4, Informative

    Basically, in World of Warcraft when a horde player typed "lol" into chat an alliance player would see "kek" because Blizzard made it so each faction couldn't chat with each other (was kind of fun really).

    It evolved from there as it became an inside joke for "lol" or any kind of trolling in general.

    The simplest way to understand it: trolls (horde) laughing and normies (alliance) not able to understand it.

    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/...

  21. Dead to Furie, alive to us all. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Not all share in Furie's delusion.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  22. The actual strip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The actual strip, which was not in the summary nor the article, is here: https://cdn.bleedingcool.net/w...

    1. Re:The actual strip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet that beverage from the bottle will resurrect him in the next strip...

  23. just seems like by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

    Another attempt to get attention. One does not simply kill a meme.

  24. Dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't even know he was sick.

  25. /r9k/ has reclaimed Pepe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, /pol/ reclaimed it for them. Robots mostly just complain and eat their tendies.

  26. This isn't "surrendering control" by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    The creator of Pepe the Frog has symbolically killed off the cartoon frog, effectively surrendering control of the character to the far right.

    Err, no, that's not how copyright works.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:This isn't "surrendering control" by coolmoe2 · · Score: 1, Informative

      This is not about his claim to copyright it's about his desire to not be the creator of the next swastika.

    2. Re:This isn't "surrendering control" by nasch · · Score: 2

      Perhaps he meant cultural control, not legal control. After all copyright rarely interferes with things spreading organically regardless of the copyright holder's wishes.

    3. Re:This isn't "surrendering control" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What copyright? We are talking about meme transmission, copyright is meaningless. He was fighting to recover control over what his character represents, and, eventually, he gave up.

  27. Pepe the Frog Is Dead by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Long live Pepe the Frog!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  28. Re:Pepe isn't dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Not talking to you pole smoker. I wasnt the one that said it was making me sick.

    Fuckin whiners

  29. Re:Pepe isn't dead by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He's more popular than ever.

    You've apparently confused Pepe for an entirely unrelated creative work that shares the same name and appearance as Pepe, but which is mostly certainly not Pepe. Given that Pepe is wholly owned by his creator and that his creator just killed Pepe off, Pepe is dead. Suggesting otherwise would mean that Pepe is not wholly owned by his creator, in which case you've just stripped his creator of the rights afforded by copyright, which suggests you don't align very well with the side you appear to be espousing.

    Either Pepe is dead or copyright is dead. I'd say it's your choice, but it isn't, since the law makes it pretty clear that Pepe's the one that's dead, and you're simply mistaken.

    As for this site making you throw up, it sounds like you may be experiencing high levels of stress. Might I suggest not being so invested in your own viewpoints that hearing alternative ones bothers you so? I'm still registered as a Republican* last I checked, but nothing about this article leaves me queasy in the least, other than that this guy's work was illegally co-opted against his will for something he finds abhorrent.

    *Disclaimer: I didn't vote in the last election. I decided that no matter which was the lesser of two evils, I could not, in good conscience, support either of the sides. Ditto for the third-parties, who all looked to be as crazy as a bag of nuts this last time around.

  30. This is what you sound like: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Absolutely. Hitlers, too, all of them, 110%
    Out of ten Trump supporters, 11 are Hitlers. The 12th is actually Hitlerina (because Trump needs someone to grab).
    Racist! Especially the black Trump supporters: all black Hitlers.
    I mean, Hilterry and CNN said so, so Trump is Hitler, and it was her turn after all.
    Oh, and Russia! Russian Hitler!

    1. Re:This is what you sound like: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget to mention his Jewish supporters. Anti-semites, all of them!

  31. Man the torches!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait, the 'alt right' is having fun with a meme??? KILL IT! DESTROY IT!!! For the love of god and free speech, GET RID OF IT NOW!!!!

    I need a unicorn frappachino and a nap now.........

    1. Re:Man the torches!!! by coolmoe2 · · Score: 0

      Yes if it gives the alt right fun or pleasure I would love to see it destroyed. Those fucktards are responsible for making the whole country look like a bunch of inbred back woods hillbillies.

    2. Re:Man the torches!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's funnier than you caring about how 'the country' looks to outsiders, is that electing one of the most influential and cosmopolitan real-estate magnates, from the most cosmopolitan and richest city in the country, somehow makes the country 'look like' your bigoted notion of ignorance and poverty.
      Are you at least an equal-opportunity insulter? For example, when Obama was elected, did you suddenly consider the country to now look like a bunch of 'rap quoting weed smoking purple soda drinking grade school dropouts'?
      Or do you only hate America when your team doesn't run things for a few years?

    3. Re:Man the torches!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      making the whole country look like a bunch of powermongering inbred back woods hillibillies (you had a typo there) that you are.
      No need to thank me; I am here all night long.

    4. Re:Man the torches!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We love Lefties, open borders that any criminal can wander through, free shit at the expense of hard-working taxpayers, and violent riots when things don't go our way.

      Please, please don't destroy any of these things as they give us so much fun and pleasure. It would make us so, so sad..

      -alt right

    5. Re: Man the torches!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, turns out Trump is not cosmopolitan and has regularly attacked minorities, including the falsely accused Central Park Five.

      He has in fact, had a history of discrimination and bigotry, and let's face it, that is not something unknown to New York City. Go check out why the Bronx was Burning.

      The man has been known for his behaviors for decades too, parodying him is well recognized. He is a joke.

      And a crook to boot.

    6. Re:Man the torches!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes if it gives the alt right fun or pleasure I would love to see it destroyed.

      Good, good. Let the butthurt flow through you.

    7. Re:Man the torches!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calm your manbun and come out of your safe space captain millennial. Things aren't as bad as you think they are.

    8. Re:Man the torches!!! by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Gosh, After all this dehumanising of anyone who disagrees with you, how did they not see your side, and the moral righteousness of your position?

      Perhaps if you call them racist a few more times, you might gain their support. Or maybe a few more Hitler comparisons. Maybe shouting at them about how stupid they are might persuade some of them. Worked before, as these tactics carried Hillary to victory!

    9. Re:Man the torches!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because "hillbillies'" are an OK group to denigrate.
      I notice you're not saying "backwoods slave sharcroppers with nappy hair".
      Because, obviously, that would be wrong.
      Hypocrite.

    10. Re:Man the torches!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gosh, After all this dehumanising of anyone who disagrees with you, how did they not see your side, and the moral righteousness of your position?

      Oh, that's very easy for them. After all, they're the only rightful ones, and everybody else is just an anti-American hater who wants to take away their peculiar institutions. It's entirely expected, and easy to fathom. Realizing that you're being an a monstrous and wretched being takes tremendous moral strength, it's much easier to go with the rampaging mob.

      Perhaps if you call them racist a few more times, you might gain their support. Or maybe a few more Hitler comparisons. Maybe shouting at them about how stupid they are might persuade some of them. Worked before, as these tactics carried Hillary to victory!

      Certainly Trump was not hesitant about his own manner of despising people. You know, the ones who he blindly painted as Thugs, the ones who he said were fools for not following him, the ones who he said were dumb enough to keep voting for Democrats. The babykillers! The Crooks! And boy did he shout and rail.

      Exactly when are you planning on admitting that happened? A word of rebuke? No??

      Or will we get another?

      Hillary's mistake was actually being hesitant on it. She should have picked a VP candidate that the birthers would have gone full-on nuts over, they'd drive a ton of people to the polls.

    11. Re:Man the torches!!! by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Realizing that you're being an a monstrous and wretched being takes tremendous moral strength, it's much easier to go with the rampaging mob.

      Ah yes. Of course. Fortunately there's no way you could ever be monstrous and wretched. I'm sure you have the greatest respect for those of a different social class, and that "inbred back woods hillbillies" is a term of great respect.

      But while your position clearly is morally superior, is your rhetoric persuasive enough? I mean I assume you do want to persuade these people to change their ways and not vote for right wing idiots. Somehow, I think insulting them and calling them "monstrous and wretched" isn't quite winning over hearts and minds the way you might like.

      Is there a way of presenting yourself as something other than an "anti-American hater"? Perhaps if you didn't show hatred towards a group who see themselves as representative of America, they would reconsider their opinions. Or maybe I'm wrong. maybe they're a bunch of irresponsible hicks who should not be allowed the vote because they don't know what's good for them.

      Certainly Trump was not hesitant about his own manner of despising people. You know, the ones who he blindly painted as Thugs, the ones who he said were fools for not following him, the ones who he said were dumb enough to keep voting for Democrats. The babykillers! The Crooks! And boy did he shout and rail.

      Did those insults make you feel more or less positive towards him? Trump was successful despite this sort of shit. Not because of it. But even so, the people he insulted were the ones who would never vote for him.

      Exactly when are you planning on admitting that happened? A word of rebuke? No??

      Why would I want to rebuke him? If I did, why would I bother saying anything about him to you? Are you not aware that he's an idiot and a blowhard? Do I need to point out that his "Build a wall" proposal was idiotic and the "make Mexico pay for it" was even more stupid?

      Or will we get another?

      "Sorry 'Bout that. This video is not available in your location."

    12. Re:Man the torches!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Realizing that you're being an a monstrous and wretched being takes tremendous moral strength, it's much easier to go with the rampaging mob.

      Ah yes. Of course. Fortunately there's no way you could ever be monstrous and wretched. I'm sure you have the greatest respect for those of a different social class, and that "inbred back woods hillbillies" is a term of great respect.

      Nope, not only can I be monstrous and wretched(though I hope I will not compound it by lying about it as you imagine), I despise the idea of social classes, so I have no respect for it(in fact, I only have respect for individuals, and that's not the default by far), and no, I don't bother with the pretense of respectful terms for those who don't deserve it either (Not that I've used that term you cited, actually, that was coolmoe2. I'm not bound by it.)

      You really don't know me at all.

      But while your position clearly is morally superior, is your rhetoric persuasive enough?

      Persuasive rhetoric? To the contrary, I repudiate the practice of it. It's a nasty practice.

      I mean I assume you do want to persuade these people to change their ways and not vote for right wing idiots.

      Nope, I don't. You know what they say, when you assume, you add an ass to you and me.

      Somehow, I think insulting them and calling them "monstrous and wretched" isn't quite winning over hearts and minds the way you might like.

      There is no "might like" so...since I don't want to do it. Not one bit.

      Is there a way of presenting yourself as something other than an "anti-American hater"?

      Nope, it's a blind condemnation on their part. I do nothing to lead to it, they see it, I don't make them.

      Perhaps if you didn't show hatred towards a group who see themselves as representative of America, they would reconsider their opinions.

      The KKK considered itself patriotic. So did the Know-Nothing party. Heck, the Secessionists considered themselves rightful and true Americans. The Nazi's considered themselves patriotic Germans. The CCCP considered themselves genuine liberators. The Spanish Conquistadors thought they were serving Christ. ISIS terrorists consider themselves to be martyrs. Japanese Imperialists thought they were serving the Divine Emperor. I could go on, there's plenty more.

      You expect them to change? I don't. I don't even expect you to change. So far you've delivered what I expected, and I would be quite surprised if you defied my expectations.

      Or maybe I'm wrong.

      So far, yes, you are.

      maybe they're a bunch of irresponsible hicks who should not be allowed the vote because they don't know what's good for them.

      Oh, that's what they themselves did, once upon a time. In fact, they're still trying that malignancy, with slightly changed methods, but same intent behind it. It's really just a pretense of theirs, nothing more. I don't share it.

      I reject it.

      I would instead require people to vote. My fixes would be elsewhere.

      Better to keep people from being disproportionately represented due to factors like Gerrymandering, FPTP, WTA, malapportionment, and other faults of the current electoral system.

      Certainly Trump was not hesitant about his own manner of despising people. You know, the ones who he blindly painted as Thugs, the ones who he said were fools for not following him, the ones who he said were dumb enough to keep voting for Democrats. The babykillers! The Crooks! And boy did he shout and rail.

      Did those insults make you feel more or less positive towards him? Trump was successful despite this sort of shit.Not because of it.

      Trump was successful because of that shit. Didn't you hear the cheers? The thunderous applause? He

    13. Re:Man the torches!!! by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I don't bother with the pretense of respectful terms for those who don't deserve it either (Not that I've used that term you cited, actually, that was coolmoe2. I'm not bound by it.)

      I don't see what it matters what they deserve. I'm not suggesting this is a favour to them. I'm suggesting it is in our interest to do so.

      Persuasive rhetoric? To the contrary, I repudiate the practice of it. It's a nasty practice.

      How so? Are your ideas repulsive? I personally choose ideas I believe are right. I would like to convince other people of these views. I will do better if I try to understand their views. I may even change my mind. I may change their mind.

      To me this comes across as more productive than insulting people for disagreeing with me. You have no interest in attempting to change minds, yet you appear to get angry. You wouldn't have preferred it if these people voted for the candidate you preferred?

      Nope, it's a blind condemnation on their part. I do nothing to lead to it, they see it, I don't make them.

      Why do you think they feel this way about you, but not, for example, their Republican Congressman?

      You expect them to change? I don't. I don't even expect you to change. So far you've delivered what I expected, and I would be quite surprised if you defied my expectations.

      How would you like me to change? What could I change about myself or my viws that would please you?

      Trump was successful because of that shit. Didn't you hear the cheers? The thunderous applause? He even noted it himself. Not that he got a landslide, as he claimed, but that's a different issue. He wasn't quite as able at it as most, as it's not like he originated it, mind you, it's got a long history. Often successful.

      They were Trump's core supporters! Of course they cheer. They like him and hate his opponents. But it only attracted a certain type who were predisposed to vote Republican anyway. His vote share was Lower than Mitt Romney's in the previous election.

      Ah, that's the point, isn't it? Why would you want that, why would you bother saying it. Why indeed. What would it say about you if you had said it, instead of all of this?

      What would it have said? What does it say about me that I didn't? I really don't see what relevance it has to anything.

      Ah, but your saying it is about you. He who speaks, as Lincoln allegedly said, has removed all doubt.

      It probably wasn't him. Lincoln usually said things that were a little less daft.

      Defining needs is required before I can answer that question.

      What do I need to do in order to satisfy your demand that I rebuke him? Why is it important to you?

      You should make an effort to watch it. Or learn about it, it's the subject of much commentary, so you can ascertain its content sufficiently.

      Well, sorting out a proxy is a little too much effort for some video that I have no context for.

      PS, Saint Nicholas was a Greek in the city of Myra, on the Southern coast of Modern Turkey. Not like, you know, the Thomas Nast creation. Or maybe you don't. Hard to say. Are you ignorant, or are you ignoring?

      Uhm. Yes. So I have heard. Actually I thought the modern Santa Cause was a compound character of various spirits and gods, but I'm not an expert in the mythology or the history here. But I'm not sureof your point. Does it have something to dowith the video that is region locked for me?

    14. Re:Man the torches!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see what it matters what they deserve.

      If you don't earn something, then you aren't something, and if I called you that something, then I'd be dishonest to you.

      I'd hate to lie to you because I didn't think you could handle what I have to say.

      I'm not suggesting this is a favour to them. I'm suggesting it is in our interest to do so.

      Yes, I'm aware of your suggestion, and I'm disagreeing with you. I don't support engaging in such pretense. I suggest instead, that it is not in our interest to lie to people, and pretend to be polite.

      Persuasive rhetoric? To the contrary, I repudiate the practice of it. It's a nasty practice.

      How so? Are your ideas repulsive?

      I'm talking about persuasive rhetoric, not my ideas. Was that unclear to you? It's a nasty practice, quite repugnant and repulsive, yes.

      That has nothing to do with my ideas. Which some may find repulsive, but so what? There is a LONG history of people being repulsed by many ideas, good and sound ones.

      I personally choose ideas I believe are right. I would like to convince other people of these views. I will do better if I try to understand their views. I may even change my mind. I may change their mind.

      Oh? Understanding other's views? If that is your intent, then I suggest you try better to understand my views.

      You're doing pretty poorly on that regard. Your other aspirations, I can't say much on them, but I will say your not understanding is an impediment to changing my mind.

      To me this comes across as more productive than insulting people for disagreeing with me.

      Oh, they're not being insulted for disagreeing with me. That's another thing you're getting wrong. Figure out why people earn my disdain, and realize it's not for merely disagreeing. Such rhetoric is what I find repugnant, as that's really just you speaking a trite phrase. I'm not going to buy it just because you say it. It's an empty and hollow accusation.

      You have no interest in attempting to change minds, yet you appear to get angry.

      Oh no, anger! What a terrible emotion! Anger is, despite all of the bad reputation it has, not entirely a bad emotion. Too many Jedi dissing it, I guess. Again, this is the sort of thing that is repugnant rhetoric.

      But you're confusing my rejection of "persuasive rhetoric" with no interest in changing minds. I'm just not interested in using the form you suggested.

      You wouldn't have preferred it if these people voted for the candidate you preferred?

      When asking what I want, I'd have preferred if more people had voted, actually, there's a lot of people who didn't vote. You really shouldn't have cut the points I made about electoral reform, that kinda misses an opportunity to speak with me on terms that you might understand better.

      Perhaps not. But you could have said something, and at least achieved more than not saying anything.

      Nope, it's a blind condemnation on their part. I do nothing to lead to it, they see it, I don't make them.

      Why do you think they feel this way about you, but not, for example, their Republican Congressman?

      Blindness can also applies to their assessments of others, yes. See, I understand them, and I hear what they have to say. And what my Congressional Representative has to say at that.

      Which is why I find the system we have offensive, I'd like something where I felt I had a role in selecting somebody in some way, as opposed to having no real role.

      You expect them to change? I don't. I don't even expect you to change. So far you've delivered what I expected, and I would be quite surprised if you defied my expectations.

    15. Re:Man the torches!!! by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about persuasive rhetoric, not my ideas. Was that unclear to you?

      It was clear. If your ideas are fine, then does it make sense to present them in a positive light? Persuasive rhetoric involves Logos and pathos - presenting your views in a manner that illustrates their logic and emotional importance.

      Oh no, anger! What a terrible emotion! Anger is, despite all of the bad reputation it has, not entirely a bad emotion. Too many Jedi dissing it, I guess. Again, this is the sort of thing that is repugnant rhetoric.

      It's perfectly reasonable to be angry. I just question how you can be angry and not want to change the mind of those whose views make you angry. It came across as a contradiction.

      But you're confusing my rejection of "persuasive rhetoric" with no interest in changing minds. I'm just not interested in using the form you suggested.

      Which is interesting. This is an example of ethos - an element of persuasive rhetoric.

      You really shouldn't have cut the points I made about electoral reform, that kinda misses an opportunity to speak with me on terms that you might understand better.

      What could I have said about this except that I agree. Also it was another example of persuasive rhetoric.

      Exactly. What would it have said about you, versus what what you did say, says?

      Well...? Repeating a question doesn't answer a question. Granted I realise it's a rhetorical question (hmm... more rhetoric), but those really only work when the other party understands what your point is. WHAT IS YOUR POINT HERE?

      He who speaks, as Lincoln allegedly said, has removed all doubt.

      Yes. This is a stupid platitude, invented by someone who thought they were smart. Probably because they never asked questions out of fear of appearing stupid. The fact that it's attributed to Lincoln in order to give it a sense of authority is necessary because it isn't much of an aphorism.

      A little legwork will do you some good. No need for a proxy, you can just search on the title from the URL.

      Yes. But I have no particular interest in doing this legwork. I have no context for this. What is it about? Why should I look at it?

      Ah, that's the thing, if only you knew what it meant to me. What might I have heard, that gives that meaning.

      If you told me what it meant to me, I might know what it means to you. You haven't, so I don't.

    16. Re:Man the torches!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm talking about persuasive rhetoric, not my ideas. Was that unclear to you?

      It was clear.

      No, I disagree. You included a question as to my ideas, and did not limit your inquiry to my opposition to persuasive rhetoric. That indicates a lack of clarity.

      You should have stopped with your first question, if you didn't want to give an impression of misunderstanding. On the other hand, giving such, allowed me to attempt to address your misapprehension, so that could be a gain.

      On the other hand, your failure to acknowledge it, may make it not so.

      If your ideas are fine, then does it make sense to present them in a positive light? Persuasive rhetoric involves Logos and pathos - presenting your views in a manner that illustrates their logic and emotional importance.

      No, that's not the meaning of persuasive rhetoric which I hold. I believe that's the root of a lack a clarity here. Meanings differ, thus confusion arises. It can be difficult to have a conversation under such circumstances.

      >

      Oh no, anger! What a terrible emotion! Anger is, despite all of the bad reputation it has, not entirely a bad emotion. Too many Jedi dissing it, I guess. Again, this is the sort of thing that is repugnant rhetoric.

      It's perfectly reasonable to be angry. I just question how you can be angry and not want to change the mind of those whose views make you angry.

      Ah, accepting the reasonable nature of anger? Good for you to state, but I suggest you reconsider your phrasing in the future. I would even say, anger is the wrong term to describe my emotion. Thus your question is invalid on that premise.

      As to not wanting to change the mind of others, there are many reasons for it not to be wanted, such as disinterest in the effort, a lack of desire to make the changes, or a resignation as to futility. Frankly, I doubt I could exhaustively list the possibilities.

      It came across as a contradiction.

      Because, in part, you were wrong in your understanding, as I said:

      But you're confusing my rejection of "persuasive rhetoric" with no interest in changing minds. I'm just not interested in using the form you suggested.

      Another part, of course, is the concepts I mentioned earlier. If you consider then, then perhaps you can understand why a lack of wanting to do something can exist. Which can differ from an interest in the minds having a different sentiment.

      Those things are separate and distinct. I see I didn't make that clear.

      Which is interesting. This is an example of ethos - an element of persuasive rhetoric.

      Nope, it's an example of clarification. I have hopefully given you sufficient information to understand better, though your lack of acknowledgment gives me doubts. I just don't see the recognition there.

      I don't think you've considered it, as it were.

      You really shouldn't have cut the points I made about electoral reform, that kinda misses an opportunity to speak with me on terms that you might understand better.

      What could I have said about this except that I agree.

      I don't know, what all you could have said, but yes, you could have said that. That would have spoken much. That might be the point you're missing.

      Also it was another example of persuasive rhetoric.

      Again, you seem to have another meaning to that term than I. I would see it as corrective of your misapprehension, informative, not persuasive rhetoric.

      quote>

      Exactly. What would it have said about you, versus what what you did say, says?

      Well...? Repeating a question doesn't answer a question. Granted I realise it's a rhetorical question (hmm... more rhetoric), but those real

    17. Re:Man the torches!!! by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I'm finding this all a bit confusing to be honest.

      You don't think persuasive rhetoric is beneficial because you're strongly opposed to some completely different thing that you call persuasive rhetoric even though nobody else calls it that.

      The apparent contradiction between you clearly not liking the views of people but your desire not to change them is not a contradiction because it isn't anger.

      You want to change the political system but the only people you are expressing this to are those who already agree with you.

      My opinions are wrong because I didn't waste time expressing to someone who obviously dislikes Trump what the problems are with Donald Trump.

      Assumptions are bad because of some platitude, but your assumptions about a group of people who you have made wild assumptions about are perfectly valid.

      And all this makes perfect sense because the modern depiction of Santa Clause is different from the various myths that the character is based on.

      Did I get that right?

    18. Re:Man the torches!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm finding this all a bit confusing to be honest.

      Well, I can't disagree that you've demonstrated what to me, seems to me, some degree of confusion. Can't exactly say it's the entirety of it, however, and I don't know that you're confused, per se, you could have other sentiments instead.

      You don't think persuasive rhetoric is beneficial because you're strongly opposed to some completely different thing that you call persuasive rhetoric even though nobody else calls it that.

      There's an error, what I said is rather different, I said I repudiate it as a nasty practice, your representation of my words is quite off track, and you certainly haven't established that nobody else uses the same definitions of terms as I do. You haven't even endeavored to ascertain the definition I use, but instead simply make a claim without basis.

      Which is exactly the kind of thing I find repugnant about such use of persuasive rhetoric.

      Sorry, but I can't excuse that last bit of yours as mere confusion on your part. It's a malignancy which you've chosen to adopt.

      The apparent contradiction between you clearly not liking the views of people but your desire not to change them is not a contradiction because it isn't anger.

      Nope. That's not even close either. The reason it's not a contradiction, is because it doesn't exist, you merely misrepresented my thinking. I offered several comments regarding this to you, so repeating this error is quite a mistake on your part.

      Abandoning it would be much more prudent.

      You want to change the political system but the only people you are expressing this to are those who already agree with you.

      Well, there's yet another example of confusion on your part, since you apparently believe something like this. I have no idea how you even arrived at this. I really don't.

      The only reason I can think of why you'd say something like this, is you were trying to use some persuasive rhetoric, which again, is a bad thing for you.

      My opinions are wrong because I didn't waste time expressing to someone who obviously dislikes Trump what the problems are with Donald Trump.

      Nope. Your failure to indicate problems with Donald Trump is not related to most of your opinions, though it does involve n some, but rather than specifically wrong, what it does, is adds flaws your communications. To put it another way, while I would say you are wrong about your opinion that it is wasting time to express to someone who obviously dislikes Trump what the problems are with Donald Trump(I would say it is quite beneficial as it is demonstrative of a capacity on your part to recognize Trump's behavior), that should not be combined with the phrase of generic all-encompassingness "my opinions are wrong" as that falls into the error of practicing persuasive rhetoric.

      There's a reason why I repudiate it as a nasty practice, and you're just demonstrating it. That's really the wrong message to send.

      Assumptions are bad because of some platitude, but your assumptions about a group of people who you have made wild assumptions about are perfectly valid.

      Nope. Assumptions are flawed because of the problems that arise from them, which is expressible in a trite platitude, which in itself, is not a cause, merely a reflection.

      Since you haven't identified a group of people who I have made wild assumptions about, that bit, is again something I'll put under the banner of your attempting to use persuasive rhetoric, which again, is a fault on your part.

      And all this makes perfect sense because the modern depiction of Santa Clause is different from the various myths that the character is based on.

      Nope. You'd merely understand why I brought that up, if you knew the context that I have for it.

      Again, you're showin

    19. Re:Man the torches!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I haven't "endeavoured to ascertain" your defintion. Not have I tried to find out. Put your thesaurus away and stop using 5 dollar words when 50 cent words work better.

      I don't care what definition you use for "Persuasive Rhetoric". Why should I? It's wrong! It is a term with specific meaning. I don't care about whatever it is you find repugnant because I'm not talking about that.

      Are you really saying that you aren't making assumptions about why the people you seem to despise so much voted Trump. Why they support their congressman but not you? What rot! Of course you're making assumptions. Have you spoken to these people made an attempt to understand how they think? Of course you haven't.

      Have you attempted to provide context for your weird rant about St. Nicholas? No. Why not? Are you just trying to bask in your perception of your own intelligence? Yes, you understand something that I don't because you are a crap communicator. Communicating badly and acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness.

      I despair. The people I want representing my side are constantly fixated on completely the wrong problems because they want to appear smart.

      Yeah, this is a rant. I've lost patience, and given up trying to convince. I guess you've illustrated the problem. Well done.

    20. Re:Man the torches!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I haven't "endeavoured to ascertain" your defintion. Not have I tried to find out. Put your thesaurus away and stop using 5 dollar words when 50 cent words work better.

      I'm not responsible for bringing up that phrase, so I'm not much concerned about what value you put on it. I've stated my position, as repudiating it.

      I don't care what definition you use for "Persuasive Rhetoric". Why should I? It's wrong! It is a term with specific meaning.

      Apparently the meanings differ. It happens. Addressing that can accomplish a lot, but as you say immediately:

      I don't care about whatever it is you find repugnant because I'm not talking about that.

      For you, that would be a choice then, not talking with me on that subject, but since my usage is apparently different, and involves repudiation of it, I think it would put us at an impasse.

      Are you really saying that you aren't making assumptions about why the people you seem to despise so much voted Trump. Why they support their congressman but not you? What rot! Of course you're making assumptions. Have you spoken to these people made an attempt to understand how they think? Of course you haven't.

      Well, that would be representing my words in a false and erroneous manner, since I made no such claims as you premise your question upon, and furthermore, in nature, they are the kind of persuasive rhetoric which I have already repudiated.

      Perhaps you might want to examine how you're thinking? It doesn't seem accurate.

      Have you attempted to provide context for your weird rant about St. Nicholas? No. Why not?

      You call that a rant? I call it a remark, and you are right, I have not. This has been a deliberate and willful on my part.

      And I haven't attempted, because I've chosen not to do so.

      Are you just trying to bask in your perception of your own intelligence?

      Nope.

      Yes, you understand something that I don't because you are a crap communicator.

      True, I understand something, what with me having the context for it, since I said it, but as I am choosing not to communicate further, I wouldn't describe it as you did, due to me being a crap communicator, that doesn't seem a clear enough phrasing.

      I would consider another term.

      Communicating badly and acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness.

      Well, I'm not the one purporting to be clever, or being concerned about it. That seems to be your bugaboo. I see at least two or three instances of resorting to it on your part, but I see it as attempts at the persuasive rhetoric I've already repudiated.

      I despair. The people I want representing my side are constantly fixated on completely the wrong problems because they want to appear smart.

      And I would say you are fixated on the wrong problems, though I cannot entirely ascertain the cause. Perhaps you might engage in some introspection and understand your reasons.

      Yeah, this is a rant. I've lost patience, and given up trying to convince. I guess you've illustrated the problem. Well done.

      I wouldn't call it a rant(you lack certain emotive character in your post that would demonstrate the the excessive hysteria and opprobrium required), it's more a flawed post, though I can't say you're wrong in your demonstrating a lost of patience. I don't quite have enough observational information to see any contradictory statements

      In terms of the convincing nature of your post, no, I don't even believe you will appear authentic or genuine. Sorry. Some people might even believe this whole thing is a set-up, a fabrication, entirely a creation for Potemkin. Or was it by Potemkin? I forget.

      Of course, the odds of more than a few people viewing it are minimal anyway.

    21. Re:Man the torches!!! by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      So why were you even bothering to respond?

    22. Re:Man the torches!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't say it is a bother, but a choice.

    23. Re:Man the torches!!! by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Do you even know how conversation works?

    24. Re:Man the torches!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conversations don't always work.

      As far as I'm concerned, well I've pointed out enough of your failings that you could have chosen to act differently if you had wanted to do so.

    25. Re: Man the torches!!! by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I'll take that as a "no" then. You have failed to master a basic element of human interaction.

    26. Re: Man the torches!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'll take that as yet another example of your attempts at "persuasive rhetoric" that you've chosen to make. But since I've repudiated the practice, you utilization of it, only serves to have it fail you in regards to me.

      Had you wanted to do so, you've could have chosen differently, but obviously, you didn't. At the least, you haven't made a choice not to do it.

    27. Re: Man the torches!!! by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      And I'll take that as yet another example of your attempts at "persuasive rhetoric" that you've chosen to make

      I gave up on that a long time ago. But since I've repudiated the practice, you utilization of it, only serves to have it fail you in regards to me.

      You've repudiated some other prctice that you keep talking about but haven't defined, but insist on calling "persuasive rhetoric". At this point, I don't even think you know what "repudiated" means, or "utilization" for that matter.

      Had you wanted to do so, you've could have chosen differently, but obviously, you didn't. At the least, you haven't made a choice not to do it.

      What!? This sentence is so convoluted it should be taken out and shot.

  32. Re:Does killing a character release the copyright? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    He could have easily parleyed Pepe into a popular Youtube animation series

    Who is he at war with?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  33. It was the French people that killed him.. by toonces33 · · Score: 1

    They cooked him in a butter, wine and garlic sauce and had him for dinner over the weekend.

    1. Re:It was the French people that killed him.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So maybe he died but he tasted great doing it?

    2. Re:It was the French people that killed him.. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Hehe they sure did! Shame what happened to Pepe the comic character, but it looks like the alt-right is cooked!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:It was the French people that killed him.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but it was the garlic, not the frog.

  34. Rotated Pepe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the groups using the Pepe could little, you know, rotate it in a more appropriate position? Something like 45 degrees could be good.

  35. Re:Pepe isn't dead by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

    Pepe is dead, the same way Batman is dead. Killing him off didn't end him, he was just resurrected.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  36. Re: Pepe isn't dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well put. I'd hoped whichever evil won this last election it would quiet the rhetoric a bit. Now the levels only seem to be getting worse on both sides. This cartoon frog probably killed himself to get away from all the mud slinging.

  37. And yet I am r@repe.pe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    r@repe.pe is a full communist (me)

    Email me

    The left has seized Pepe

  38. Fork Pepe! by sinij · · Score: 1

    I say we fork Pepe (or at least his legs).

    I will show myself out.

  39. Re:Praise KEK! by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

    May all your kek be topkek.

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
  40. But Pepe the Frog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is the national emblem of the Republic of Kekistan.

    As an ethnic Kekistani, I am offended that someone has exterminated our national emblem!

    Pepe the From will never be dead as long as a single Kekistani lives to remember him.

  41. Re:Pepe isn't dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "suggests you don't align very well with the side you appear to be espousing."

    There's no side to align with there, except for "I'm an obese, white, failure, and somebody else is to blame."

    Taken in this context, everything they do makes sense.

  42. Re:Does killing a character release the copyright? by unimacs · · Score: 2

    If you're ripping off people you don't like, your emotions have already gotten in the way.

  43. Re:Pepe isn't dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either Pepe is dead or copyright is dead.

    Ever hear of parody, dumbass? "Pepe" can be dead and copyright can be alive.

  44. The left didn't brand it a hate symbol by rsilvergun · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    the right started using it as such and the left documented the fact. What's that old quote from Gore Vidal... "I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm a conspiracy analyst".

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  45. Re:Pepe isn't dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The character was forked and can no longer be killed.

  46. Re:Pepe isn't dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, all the Hillary supporters made it quite clear that failing to vote at all was automatically a vote for Trump. So, apparently, you voted for Trump.

    I have trouble with this logic. My state went with Hillary. If I had voted for Trump, my state still would have gone with Hillary and Trump still would have won. If I, and every living person in my state, had voted for Hilary, Trump still would have won.

    It's a strange world....

  47. Re:Pepe isn't dead by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    So, what you are telling me is that Pepe is really just the Green Jesus of the internet?

    Dare I say... feelsgoodman?

  48. The Author is Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody memeing pepe was an actual white supremacist.

    Whether or not those who originated the meme included actual white supremacists, that's obviously untrue (we've all seen at least one white supremacist wearing a Pepe badge).

    In fact, as people, anonymous shitposters on 4chan don't matter ... they're anonymous, duh!. What matters is the meme. You are irrelevant, your intent is irrelevant, nobody was tricked and Pepe has actually become a shibboleth.

    1. Re: The Author is Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've seen a white supremacist with a Pepe pin? Do tell.

    2. Re: The Author is Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've seen a white supremacist with a Pepe pin?

      "[W]e've all seen at least one white supremacist wearing a Pepe badge." Maybe a punch in the head would jog your memory?

  49. It's pretty much the same thing as "Archer" by Pezbian · · Score: 1

    Archer's spy organization couldn't be ISIS after Daesh took that name. 4chan did to Pepe what they did to Rage Guy and now that's dead, too. It's crystal clear 4chan's the real enemy.

    --
    In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
    1. Re:It's pretty much the same thing as "Archer" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mother, do we kill Christians?"
      "If they're our targets, yes."
      "Okay what about Christians who didn't do anything?"
      "Heavens no! Sterling what's gotten into you?"
      "One last question, do we allow BLTs in the canteen?"
      "Well yes! Sterling where are you, are you hung over, and why are you asking me these questions?"
      "Well, I'm somewhere in Africa, very, and I wanted to make sure I was working for the right ISIS."

      *title theme*

      "Okay crew, Sterling has joined the WRONG ISIS!"

      They could've done that but nooooooooo.

  50. Re:Pepe isn't dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either Pepe is dead or copyright is dead. I'd say it's your choice, but it isn't, since the law makes it pretty clear that Pepe's the one that's dead, and you're simply mistaken.
    Copyright is dead. Has been for quite awhile. Most of us just haven't noticed it yet.

    Personally, I feel if you don't vote, you have no right to complaint and I would love that the govt (regardless of which party is in power) to strip the rights from you. Kinda like the purge.

  51. Re:kek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kek is the Egyptian god of primordial darkness in the Ancient Egyptian Ogdoad cosmogony. As a concept, Kek was viewed as androgynous, his female form being known as Keket (also Kekuit). Kek and Keket in some aspects also represent night and day and were called "raiser up of the light" and the "raiser up of the night", respectively.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kek_(mythology)

    The deity has a head of a frog.

    https://www.amazon.com/Egyptian-Frog-Goddess-Heket-Statue/dp/B001BX5PD2

    While Wow stumbled onto it, thats not how Pepe got connected to it. This is.

  52. Going to break the circlejerk by Wasteland_Frier · · Score: 2

    You're making this way too easy for us. I posted an infographic labelled "White Supremacist Hand Symbols" that I found on 4chan on a troll meme page I run, it got shitloads of shares on various liberal pages. What they didn't seem to realise was that it was the American sign language alphabet. You'd think after having multiple such instances of this kind of ridicule (particularly the whole "white power" ok symbol), people would stop being so deranged. But sites like the Guardian all double down on their stupidity. Y'all need to stop before people like me discover the trolling singularity and hit the point of no return.

    1. Re:Going to break the circlejerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link please? This sounds genuinely hilarious. Your post, I mean; I couldn't care less about the 'tards that misinterpreted it.

    2. Re: Going to break the circlejerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the right wing spent eight years claiming that Obama was flashing secret Muslim Gang Signs and Coded Messages, that the Color of the Drapes was part of the conspiracy, that bit about bowing, and some photographs where they claimed he was using the wrong hand over his heart, but now, now, you want us to give a shit?

      Tell you what, you get the GOP to stop believing satirical articles from the Onion are true, and then you can complain. And then there is Sharia law, no-go zones and whatever O'Keefe lied about lately.

  53. Re:Pepe isn't dead by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Personally, I feel if you don't vote, you have no right to complaint and I would love that the govt (regardless of which party is in power) to strip the rights from you. Kinda like the purge.

    So, effectively, you support stripping people of their First Amendment rights by compelling them to voice support for a candidate, any candidate, lest they be stripped of all their other rights?

    To say the least, I heartily disagree. I don't recommend others abstain, nor do I take it lightly, nor do I consider it acceptable just because one is feeling lazy, but I reject the notion that anyone can compel me to voice support for something I don't support, and I'd advise you to do so as well.

  54. Careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You should not automatically categorize people as "anti-semitic", "homophobic", "racist", "white nationalist", etc just because they oppose your political aims. You caused a cascade of events when you kept up that behavior.

    Take for example all the factory workers who have lost their jobs since globalization began. They, according to Warren Buffet, are "road kill". When they protest, you do what? Call them all of the above.

    There are far more categories of people than just those. You need to stop.

    1. Re:Careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The media will bring forward the anti-semitic, homophobic, racist, white nationalist, etc comments without a fault, and edit out all reasonable views. Also, the people who have certain political aims often start with the rhetoric that is one of the above. I don't know why they do that if not to ensure that the media doesn't "edit out" their political campaigns, or try to appeal the bubble boys and girls.
        The talking point and snippet politics, the movement mania, hubris hysteria and rock'n'roll talking events are destroying the public conversation and trust to the political process.

  55. He hasn't killed off shit. by Chas · · Score: 1

    Sure, he may have given a reason for ceasing use of the frog artwork HIMSELF.

    But the meme jihadis are going to continue using it regardless.

    Hell, now that the creator's effectively renounced it, they may even use it MORE. For the lulz.

    Sit back and actually THINK about this for a sec.

    We've reached a point that, by effectively TOUCHING something, we create a situation where a content creator considers it "destroyed" and relinquishes ownership.

    Do you realize what kind of power that imbues on people?

    If you want to take something away from someone, simply do something with it they consider "offensive misuse" until they give up on it.

    And you can effectively do it with pretty much ANY intellectual property these people own or use!

    SIMPLY BY CO-OPTING IT!

    How fucking crazy and stupid is that?

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:He hasn't killed off shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >reddit spacing

  56. Worship your Master by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The DNC requires that you worship your master, empress Hilary. Anything that is not worship is hate speech.

    1. Re:Worship your Master by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are a bunch of pathetic crybabies aren't they? Their reaction to Trump will almost certainly ensure that we have more retarded Republicans in office for years to come.

  57. Never fel like posting image macros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well now I do. Thank you for drawing attention to such wonderful character. I'll be sure to use it often just to piss people off. http://i.imgur.com/2Umt69E.jpg

  58. Furie became a pawn. Got used & now discarded by poity · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So Matt Furie demolishes his own house because the media wouldn't stop bugging him about how Twitter nazis were building similar looking houses and throwing wild parties in them. Despite the ADL explicitly stating that "the majority of uses of Pepe the Frog have been, and continue to be, non-bigoted", pro-Clinton journalists continued in their all-out effort to remove this thorn from Clinton's side. Their tactic, as usual, was to divide an unwelcome movement by shaming those susceptible to the fallacy of guilt by association. Any author could have just said "fanfic isn't my problem". Of course, the media would not have stopped until the guilt struck home so who knows how long one could withstand them. In the end some non-racist Pepe fans stopped having innocent giggles, and Furie took a sledgehammer to his creation, all merely to publicly gesture their CONCERN with baddies having had fun in tangentially the same way -- essentially handing over their personal autonomy to hand-wringing busybodies who write glorified blogs.

    A: Look at this Pepe meme with a swastika armband, are you CONCERNED that you're also spreading Pepe memes on twitter?

    B: My memes have no Nazi iconography, they're Smug Pepes with poofy blond hair that symbolize Trump's shameless trolling of the media

    A: Yes, but they're both frogs and both derivatives of Pepe. Are you CONCERNED?

    B: ...there's no connection except the frog and...

    A: We're not SAYING its racist, but here's a bunch of articles that heavily imply it. Are you CONCERNED now? Will you publicly condemn it so we can play a soundbite of you accepting our worldview while implicitly echoing Clinton's assertions about her opposition?
    [ad nauseam]

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  59. Great alt-right Minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... cuck

    Such originality in the deployment of invective! Betcha thought that one up all by yourself.

  60. Creator advocates Death not Speciation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of all the frogs Ive captured in my life, the prize was the Yellow Legged frog an endangered native of King's Kanyon National Parks because aggressive Bull Frogs guard every body of water to over-consume the lesser species before they could substantially reproduce. Bull Frogs that are invasive and non-natural west of the Rocky Mountain Range, have even decimated other native species of amphibians; Efts, newts, Tiger Salamanders, Red Salamanders, Pickeral Frogs, et al.

    None of these creatures compete with eachother on equal footing as the Bull Frog rampage. None of these creatures reproduce outside their kind of genome.

    So the creator of Pepe the Frog would kill all species suffering the rampage of his creature rather than reinvent his own to overtake it's own kind to be a more homely docile example of gentle breeding.

    Perish the hand that freed Pepe the Frog from realizing his true potential! The sore loser, advocatevof death rather than restruction to a more resilient species! A foul beast untamed by it's master will be cut down with his master if not train and raise by the sword, thou orphan begat by adulterous thoughts!

  61. This is the exact reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for you to mod-down/downvote/reject these types of memes.

    They're always low quality (on par with Idiocracy/Fahrenheit 451), and basically using stock expressions (sometimes even forced or being disjoint.)

  62. THIS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might believe your fascist cavorting online is merely performative and so no harm is done, but when real people brush up against your performance they only see a Nazi.

    Yes it's the egoistic delusion that their own internal states (which don't even exist for anyone else) are somehow the true measure of who they are and their conduct merely incidental.

    Matt 7:16

  63. Careful with the finger wagging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blah blah blah. You need to stop posts like this.

  64. It you strike him down.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ....he'll become more powerful than you could ever imagine!

    No really. Liberals are pretty stupid. By doing this you've essentially turned the mascot in to a martyr to rally around. You've given them exactly what they wanted. I'm proud of the people who pulled this off - nothing like people freaking out over a cartoon character to show how completely divorced they are from reality.

  65. Head for the hills? by jandersen · · Score: 1

    Every time somebody raises concerns about the current trends towards hate, distrust, racism and shameless, outright lying, it seems a group of howler monkeys start up, trying to drown out any comment they don't like, using any means they have at hand. I suppose we should all be grateful they generally aren't all that intellectually well-endowed, and that most of it is just meaningless nonsense. It used to upset me, because I genuinely like to have an honest discussion about things and try to cultivate an attitude of being willing to let the arguments and the facts convince me; recently, however, I decided to not care any more. After all, reality is reality, even if people like the alt-right (or should that be 'alt-wrong'?) are too scared to face up to it. In the end, reality will win through - how could it be otherwise?

    So, perhaps the best course of action is to withdrow from things, head for the hills, and let the idiots stew in their own shit; and then come back once they have killed off each other. It is certainly tempting to do so. I think those of us that remember our history lessons, will recall that what we see now has been seen before: the fascists in Italy, the nazis in Germany, the falangists in Spain, and the list goes on and on: a small group of ruthless fanatics exploit a large population of people, who feel they have little or no hope and little education, by stirring up shit and bullying anybody that opposes them. It's funny how the world turns - who would have thought, 30 or 40 years ago, that America, the Land of Freedom and Opportunity, would be the next bastion of benighted fascism? And that China would become the beacon of hope? And yet, that is where seem to be going at the moment.

    1. Re:Head for the hills? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeh, let them have all the guns they want, being such dumb violent bigoted turds, they will turn on each other in the end. Im well set, and have stockpiled popcorn to watch the fun.
      The alt right trolls are really just a puss filled pimple on the ass of good people, they will poison themselves with their own bile.
      Fun to watch.

    2. Re:Head for the hills? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      If by "beacon of hope" you mean "doing what the guys in charge tell you", then yeah.

      "Democracy is messy, and it's hard. It's never easy."
      --Robert Kennedy, Jr.

  66. Re:Pepe isn't dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing stops you casting a defaced ballot.

  67. Re:Pepe isn't dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's more popular than ever.

    You've apparently confused Pepe for an entirely unrelated creative work that shares the same name and appearance as Pepe, but which is mostly certainly not Pepe. Given that Pepe is wholly owned by his creator and that his creator just killed Pepe off, Pepe is dead. Suggesting otherwise would mean that Pepe is not wholly owned by his creator, in which case you've just stripped his creator of the rights afforded by copyright, which suggests you don't align very well with the side you appear to be espousing.

    You have no idea at all how copyright works, do you? First off, Pepe is neither alive nor dead, it's freaking cartoon character. He may be dead within the author's story which doesn't make any pictures of him appearing outside of that story somehow magically not him.

    Want a proof? Try printing and selling a comic book with that "completely unrelated creative work that shares the name and appearance of Pepe but which most certainly is not Pepe because Pepe is dead" and see how well your theory flies with the court when you get sued for copyright infringement on Pepe. If I draw Pepe then it is Pepe. Now, this picture may or may not be infringing copyright, but whether it infringes copyright has no bearing at all on what that picture *is*. In fact, if it is infringing copyright, it is precisely because it is Pepe. Just because the picture infringes copyright doesn't make it non-Pepe, and just because copyright is infringed doesn't make it "dead" somehow. Nor does anyone have to oppose copyright to recognise this as a (possibly copyright-infringing) picture of Pepe.

    But considering that the memes are noncommercial, nonprofit, satirical uses of the character they do not even infringe upon anyone's copyright because they're covered by fair use laws.

    Oh, and if you think that people like RIAA, MPAA, and the rest of Hollywood pro-copyright MAFIAA are aligned with the right then I want some of the kool-aid you're drinking, must be strong stuff.

  68. Re:Pepe isn't dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know OR it's fair use to use Pepe in a farsical manor to make the jokes.

  69. Re:Pepe isn't dead by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Either Pepe is dead or copyright is dead. I'd say it's your choice, but it isn't, since the law makes it pretty clear that Pepe's the one that's dead, and you're simply mistaken.

    For a law to have any relevance in the matter it must be effective and followed. When Pepe's creator starts suing people en mass for copyright infringement then we can declare the law won and pepe to be dead.

    Until that time it is copyright which is dead.

  70. Hahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is comedy GOLD! Where can i get in on the meme action? I too want to annoy the easily offended, its so much fun!

  71. . . .and on the Third Meme. . . by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    . . . . Pepe arose from the dead. Although he **IS** fighting it out with Jesusraptor. Geeze, people, it's MEMES and 4CHAN. . .

  72. This is quite amazing, really.... by gosand · · Score: 1

    Just to summarize...
    There is a story, that has made "the news", where a cartoon frog has been "killed off". This frog was an obscure image that was picked up by people on the internet as a way to make on line jokes. It was one of many many images used for this purpose. As making and sharing these memes became more popular, it was used more and more to incite a reaction in other people. This actually found its way into the presidential election process. Now people are sitting around on a message board debating and visciously arguing about the topic.

    I really want to ask if we can get much lower on the importance scale. But I already know that answer.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  73. Re:Pepe isn't dead by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    Except an electronic voting booth?

  74. Why the media acts like they do with Twitter by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    The mainstream media is absolutely retarded and when they see a bunch of Twitter posts about something they jump on it and run with it.

    This is correct and there is a good reason for it. Written media, particularly newspapers, is struggling to make money. Even online sources have so much competition that everybody is fighting for the same piece of the pie and the barrier to enter and compete is low enough for everybody to do it. Written media doesn't really understand social media, so the big companies have forced their writers to be on Twitter and maintain certain numbers of followers to keep their jobs. This had led the written media to overemphasize the importance of Twitter because their pointy haired bosses don't understand it at all so they think it's more important than it really is. Also, people who follow you for any reason get you towards the magic count you have to reach to keep your job. So in sports, some writers are just rumor mongers on Twitter because it keeps people following them, even if what they say never happens. If some dude on Facebook who lives in, say, Nebraska and has a pizza delivery job and lives in his mom's basement says he doesn't like what Stephen Colbert said about Trump recently, nobody would care. But if the same nobody gets on Twitter and says the exact same thing, suddenly it becomes relevant and the media covers it. I wish I had a solution to get the media to understand that Twitter isn't important and what people say on it doesn't matter, but as long as maintaining certain levels of Twitter followers is a job requirement, it will continue to be overemphasized.

  75. Re:kek by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    This shows that the only "internet" you know is social media. Key has nothing to do with pepe. You're spreading false information please stop contributing to the problem.

  76. Re:Pepe isn't dead by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    He may be dead within the author's story which doesn't make any pictures of him appearing outside of that story somehow magically not him.

    Want a proof? Try printing and selling a comic book with that "completely unrelated creative work that shares the name and appearance of Pepe but which most certainly is not Pepe because Pepe is dead" and see how well your theory flies with the court when you get sued for copyright infringement on Pepe.

    Copyright is intended to be used for securing for limited Times to Authors [...] the exclusive Right to their respective Writings. As such if it is Pepe, then it must be coming from the author or someone to whom he has granted a license. Anything else is a knock-off Pepe, which, depending on the degree to which it was knocked off, may or may not be an infringement of copyright.

    By the logic you've proposed here, if you were to slap a Coca-Cola logo on the side of a bottle, you'd be getting sued for selling actual Coke, rather than for selling something other than Coke that can be confused for it. Granted, I chose a trademark example since it was more concrete, but the same would apply equally well to copyright. They're using Pepe's name and appearance with a derivative work that is insufficiently transformed from the original so as to distinguish it. As such, while it is something wholly different from the original Pepe, it is still similar enough to infringe on copyright.

  77. RIP in Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Feels bad man

  78. Re:kek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even more fun was learning to "decode" the cross-faction speak to form words that the other side COULD understand. If I remember correctly, typing in "15 15 vgv" into local chat in Orcish would be translated to the Alliance as "HA HA lol". Much more fun than having "kek" come across when ganking people.

  79. Pepe turned to Trump, death is false flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've apparently confused Pepe for an entirely unrelated creative work that shares the same name and appearance as Pepe, but which is mostly certainly not Pepe. Given that Pepe is wholly owned by his creator and that his creator just killed Pepe off, Pepe is dead.

    Bro only libtards try to argue like that. Are you gonna nail him on spelling errors too? Pepe isn't dead, he's been kidnapped and turned to the Trump light. You guys had to fake his death to hide the embarrassment. EAD.

  80. Trump Train already did fork Pepe, kek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You guys really gotta get with the program.

  81. ZOMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are either a globalist shill (for pay because nobody does that for fun), or today is your first day as a human being. 4chan attacks everyone equally, but especially liberal philosophies because they're all bullshit and fake and part of a conspiracy anyway. You want special SJW cover and immunity for your schemes but you don't get it and you never will. BOO HOO. Face the sunlight, vampires! You think you're so elite but you don't even know how to win on your own internets!

  82. Re:Does killing a character release the copyright? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    The only times I've heard of this hate speech Pepe thing have been a Slahdot article posted several months ago and this one today.

    Maybe I don't spend my time steeped in communities with so little power that only people who go there intentionally know about them.

  83. it's a shame... by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    It's a shame things take on meanings other than their original intention.
    Pepe was a such a happy and gay fellow, after all...

  84. Whackos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While Trump Bannon and Kushner rape the US of anything valuable these ignorant throwback confederate wannabes worship Trump because of their own racism, and most of them seem to have chimed in here on this blog. Oh Boris Epshtyn where have you and your opinionated Russian comrades gone?

  85. MAKE PARASITISM UNPROFITABLE THROUGH PUNISHMENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) You donâ(TM)t argue with 'liberals' , 'progressives', socialists, and feminists.

    2) You prosecute them. You point out that they're liars, parasites, thieves.

    3) Then you beat them, deprive them of property, enslave them if you must, and kill them if necessary.

    When parasitism is unprofitable it will stop.

    As long as parasitism is profitable it will continue.

    So:
    Hit, hurt, beat, deprive, enslave, kill. We are men. We defend capital. We defend capital against all enemies familial, domestic, and foreign.

    Every man militia, every man a sheriff, every man a judge, every man a hangman.

    There is only one source of truth, prosperity, sovereignty, and the conditions of liberty and freedom and subsidy:

    The reciprocal insurance of natural law by ENOUGH men willing and able, to make alternatives too costly to pursue.

  86. Re:Does killing a character release the copyright? by unimacs · · Score: 1

    I had no idea either, but I've got no vested interested this frog. The cartoonist does.

  87. Why is slashdot dictating political views to me? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    Is slashdot saying everyone is too stupid or too insensitive or too whatever to have their own political opinions?

  88. Re:Does killing a character release the copyright? by DatbeDank · · Score: 1

    Money isn't everything.

    If you had a decent amount of it, you would feel differently. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

  89. Re:Does killing a character release the copyright? by unimacs · · Score: 1

    You really think so? How much or how little money do you suppose I have? Because my experience has been the opposite. I've cared the most about money when it was in short supply.

    I will grant you that there are plenty of people whose major motive in life is to make more and more money. And maybe it is a viscous cycle of sorts. The more they have, the more they want. Doesn't sound like somebody worth envying though.

  90. If Kermit had a cousin... by iq145 · · Score: 1

    He'd look just like Pepe