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.
Another reason to despise Hilary and the ADL.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
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.
Who else will Ms. Piggy cheat with to make Kermit the Frog jealous?
Feels Bad Man.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
Dibs on the legs.
Boy's Club? Membership of one?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09...
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.
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/...
Not all share in Furie's delusion.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The actual strip, which was not in the summary nor the article, is here: https://cdn.bleedingcool.net/w...
Another attempt to get attention. One does not simply kill a meme.
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.
Long live Pepe the Frog!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
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!
Who is he at war with?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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
They cooked him in a butter, wine and garlic sauce and had him for dinner over the weekend.
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.
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.
I say we fork Pepe (or at least his legs).
I will show myself out.
May all your kek be topkek.
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
If you're ripping off people you don't like, your emotions have already gotten in the way.
The character was forked and can no longer be killed.
So, what you are telling me is that Pepe is really just the Green Jesus of the internet?
Dare I say... feelsgoodman?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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
....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.
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.
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!
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.
. . . . Pepe arose from the dead. Although he **IS** fighting it out with Jesusraptor. Geeze, people, it's MEMES and 4CHAN. . .
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.
Except an electronic voting booth?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
It's a shame things take on meanings other than their original intention.
Pepe was a such a happy and gay fellow, after all...
I had no idea either, but I've got no vested interested this frog. The cartoonist does.
Is slashdot saying everyone is too stupid or too insensitive or too whatever to have their own political opinions?
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!"
Money isn't everything.
If you had a decent amount of it, you would feel differently. Sounds like sour grapes to me.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"Sorry 'Bout that. This video is not available in your location."
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.
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.
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?
Why do you think they feel this way about you, but not, for example, their Republican Congressman?
How would you like me to change? What could I change about myself or my viws that would please you?
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.
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.
It probably wasn't him. Lincoln usually said things that were a little less daft.
What do I need to do in order to satisfy your demand that I rebuke him? Why is it important to you?
Well, sorting out a proxy is a little too much effort for some video that I have no context for.
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?
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.
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.
Which is interesting. This is an example of ethos - an element of persuasive rhetoric.
What could I have said about this except that I agree. Also it was another example of persuasive rhetoric.
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?
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.
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?
If you told me what it meant to me, I might know what it means to you. You haven't, so I don't.
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?
So why were you even bothering to respond?
Do you even know how conversation works?
I'll take that as a "no" then. You have failed to master a basic element of human interaction.
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.
What!? This sentence is so convoluted it should be taken out and shot.
He'd look just like Pepe