The Christchurch shooter, whilst likely in on the "joke", made the gesture in court. At that point, the difference between it being a joke made by a white supremacist, or a symbol of white supremacism evaporates. It is a symbol used by a white supremacist, therefore it is a white supremacist symbol.
Context matters of course, but I don't feel you can truly deny it has taken on meaning outside of the original joke
> I don't feel you can truly deny it has taken on meaning outside of the original joke.
It hasn't. The supremacist using it in court room is using it entirely within the context of the original joke. Within the context of the joke, that is, but not within the joke. He's using it knowingly. The original joke is "get people to see the OK gesture as a racist symbol, so that people are then pranked in situations in which someone who fell for the hoax embarasses himself by calling out someone else who uses the gesture in the usual way and has no idea about the hoax. Hardy har har, hoo hoo."
I'm not a white supremacist or neo-nazi. Can I put a swastika on my jacket, such that everyone understands it's not a symbol of nazism, because I'm not a confirmed nazi, not standing in a court room for crimes connected with my ideology?
You have to start a war and kill at least a few hundred thousand people before you get to hijack a common hand gesture for your ideology.
Context matters of course, but I don't feel you can truly deny it has taken on meaning outside of the original joke
Oh I do deny. Nearly every example ever shown is indistinguishable from accident or people using it for other purposes. Mexican workers "flashes" it while driving around: fired. West Point cadets goofing off, punching each other: sanctioned. Random individuals in photos: obviously white supremacist.
to inflate this non-issue, and then use the very fact of its inflation as justification for its further inflation is reprehensible, and then get actual innocent people labeled as racist. Truly despicable
You asked for an example, so I gave a particularly egregious example of exactly what you asked for. You suddenly switch your position to "nearly every example" and do not address the very specific and relevant example I gave at all.
I was very clear elsewhere what it would take to convince me that there is something to this nonsense. One guy using it in a courtroom ain't it. Did anyone interview him about it? Ask what it was, where he heard about it, what our who he was trying to signal, if he was? Or, did the journalist make up the association on their own?
I'm not here to read your entire comment history. I replied to a specific request of yours with a relevant example. You go off on a mostly irrelevant screed.
Come on. Does it really need to be speculated on? That "one guy" is a white supremacist who killed 50+ people - I think it's pretty clear what his intentions were. On top of that, his written manifesto was a) steeped in 4chan memes and winks to those in the know, b) released on either 8chan or 4chan itself. So it is clear he would know the origins and was playing it up
> I'm not here to read your entire comment history
I wouldn't ordinarily expect that of anyone, except that you had already replied.
Perhaps we should define terms. When people use the term "white supremacist symbol" I hear something that is used by everyone including white supremacists to unambiguously signal white supremacy. A Nazi flag. A burning cross. Shaved head, bomber jacket, combat boots, and most importantly, white laces.
The content of these particular symbols stem self-consciously from their progenitors: putative Aryan heritage in the case of the swastika, the purity of Protestant Christian values for the burning cross, etc
A symbol that everyone uses - including white supremacists - to mean something else - "OK" - is not a white supremacist symbol by that definition.
Its history as a purported white supremacist symbol, a joke on a trolling board, doesn't follow that of actual such symbols
The movement to turn it into a white supremacist symbol is now driven largely by serious, earnest, white leftists, curiously enough. I point to the people who are constantly pointing it out as evidence as my evidence. Why is this, I wonder? It's curious.
> his written manifesto was a) steeped in 4chan memes and winks to those in the know
Assuming that's true, then it's even more evidence to me that OK is not a "white supremacist symbol" his own white supremacy notwithstanding. He, your best evidence that it is, this fellow who used it, is well versed in its origin as a joke.
The Christchurch shooter, whilst likely in on the "joke", made the gesture in court. At that point, the difference between it being a joke made by a white supremacist, or a symbol of white supremacism evaporates. It is a symbol used by a white supremacist, therefore it is a white supremacist symbol.
Context matters of course, but I don't feel you can truly deny it has taken on meaning outside of the original joke