jakee

Right, but once again, the people they trolled into thinking it was racist included racists. So now racists do use it to be racist. Yes it sucks, yes it's confusing, yes we should be very careful about making judgements based on it, but also yes, it now sometimes does mean white power.

Not to begin with. You very definitively said his gesture had nothing to do with white power. Several times. In ALL CAPS, for added emphasis. Seriously dude, you literally just acknowledged that exact point, it makes no sense to backtrack now. And I'm not dogpiling on you, I'm just pointing out to Airdvr that his post has nothing to do with what has actually been said and everything to do with who he feels he needs to disagree with.

Being respected solely by people who exist inside the neo-fascist extreme right wing media circle jerk Q conspiracy bubble doesn't really count.

Because no-one in an antifa group can afford a t-shirt? How do you know it isn't Trump?

Once again, inferring is something you do. If you think force must be involved in removing someone from office that's on you. It's certainly not implied by the headline.

Funny, the person you're replying to is the only one in this thread who has made any definitive statement about what the cop did or didn't mean.

That has nothing to do with the wording of the headline, which is what you were making a big deal about and which I was specifically asking you about. What is the difference between the headlines themselves?

Don't be so bloody stupid. What exactly is it about the phrase 'must go' that strongly implies a legal process and what is it about the headline 'must be removed' that (especially in an election year) strongly implies an illegal one?

Given that we're dealing with someone so desperate to say good things about Trump that he even demands that people praise him for actions that are the exact opposite of what he actually did... seems pretty obvious.

I didn't automatically say it was. You said it definitely had absolutely nothing to do with white power. In this instance, no one is disputing that the sign given is the ok sign. If someone standing in front of an anti nazi crowd gave a gesture that was a nazi salute you'd have to be pretty damn obtuse to argue that they weren't intending to antagonise people who don't like nazis

So what? My point stands and is proven that the people they fooled into believing it was a white power symbol includes white supremacists, who went on to use it without irony as a white power symbol. My point aso stands that it wouldn't matter if he was using it as a joke white power symbol or a real white power symbol for it to be a bad thing to do.

Yes, they're perpetuating the notion that it is used as a white power symbol because it is now used as a white power symbol. No matter that it started as a hoax, it was such a successful one that reality ended up following art. There is now definite, post-ironic use of ok as a real white power symbol. It is if he means it to be. That's what symbols are, vehicles to convey meaning. Now, for sure this is tricky because the ok symbol still usually just means ok. In this case I'm not so sure. Can't really see who he would be so ostentatiously signalling ok to and why it would be so funny. Looks to me more likely that he's doing it because he knows some people will see it as a white power symbol. And at that point it doesn't really matter if he's in on the joke or not, or he is a supremacist or not - he's doing it because he knows what people will think it means and he knows that will piss them off. And that is arrogant, stupid and counterproductive behaviour that nobody needs to see right now. There doesn't need to be. That's not how symbolism works. There's no individual meaning to a palm down salute that represents something about Nazism, but try throwing one at work, use that excuse and let me know how it goes.

Those legs involved it ACTUALLY being appropriated into white power symbolism.

I wonder if this might cause you to stop and think about how the way you see things relates to the truth. About the spin that happens inside your own head that just made you read black as white and up as down.

So? Why? A - Why? B - Have you considered that it too is made possible purely because of your precious EC?

If you're as hard done by as you claim that would actually make it easier - there'd be loads of jokes against you that you could post.

Hah, I love it when you claim that. Sure, you must have a great sense of humour if you can laugh at a stupid joke that agrees with your political stance. Oh, hang on a minute - nah, everyone can do that. If you want to boast at having a sense of humour stronger than your political biases you need a history of posting jokes that poke fun at what you hold dear, not at what the other guy holds dear.

Thinking that is the main explanation is pathetically shortsighted. Do you think the founders foresaw the future where states of intentionally tiny populations were created simply in order to skew the electoral map to a particular party's advantage? Further, your post really encapsulates the limited way of thinking that leads people to think any states are being trampled on. Because what you have to forget in order for that argument to make sense is that States aren't homogenous blobs of like minded people. For instance, thinking that giving California equal representation would trample all over the good ol' boys in Texas. You cn't have a bunch of liberals from the coast telling the whole of the rest of the country what to do! But here's the thing - Texas isn't full of conservatives. It isn't the big red block you see on the map. 9 out of 20 voters in Texas wanted a Democrat. Same in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Wisconsin. The current electoral college system disenfranchised those voters twice - not only do they get dismissed through the simple fact their state went red, but their fellow voters in states that went blue get counted for less than they should.

No, it was put there to stop the people deciding the election for the elites. And it did that job well. (Plus the state of California didn't exist at the time, but that's just details.)

Brazile passed on questions during the primary. Hillary won that election. So, y'know, how the fuck did you find such a stupid meme?

How will you know they're a bad guy? What if they just look like you, a normal parishioner with a gun?

Yes, that is what Trump is saying. Fuck the rest of 'em, while protecting corrupt institutions like his.

Surprising no-one, you have it entirely backwards. The bill Trump vetoed would have blocked measures to make it harder for students to access loan forgiveness. Trump's veto allows those measures to be instituted. Trump's veto makes it harder for students to obtain loan forgiveness. You have, in fact, just provided an example of Trump acting against the interests of the country in order to protect the crooks who run scam universities like his. (This is all made very clear in the article you linked, and I honestly can't see any way other than your knee-jerk Trump Defence Syndrome for you to have misunderstood it.)

How?

Eh? How does that follow?