[krapp]

>Also, I've only ever seen "honk honk" used to reference "clown world", i.e. that the author thinks something societal or political is ridiculous, should this really be classified as hate speech? If so, makes me wonder whether the push to ban 'hate speech' and label it as extremely hazardous makes sense...

It's odd that you know what "honk honk" and the "clown world" meme without having any idea where they come from[0,1].

[0]https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Clown_World

[0]https://www.antihate.ca/_honk_honk_antisemitic_meme_before_c...

[EarlKing]

Why would that be odd? Most people encounter memes in the wild far removed from their point of origin. They have only the context in which it is used to interpret its meaning. Even if it had anti-semitic origins that doesn't mean it is used as such in the vast majority of instances any more than every use of Pepe or Groyper is.

It is precisely this sort of blackwhite thinking that cast serious doubts on the validity of the author's work and really just makes them look like someone with an axe to grind... or, to put it another way: *HONK HONK*

[version_five]

Seems like maybe it's not actually the "dog whistle" conspiracy the links claim and it's possible people just see it as " the author thinks something societal or political is ridiculous" as the GP mentioned?

I'm familiar with the "clown world" Twitter account, while I've never heard of any of the stuff on the wiki article, nor have I even used 4chan (other than once following an HN link about some IT thing).

[justinclift]

It's used widely around the internet these days without any of that bullshit.

So it's not surprising people wouldn't associate it with racism, or know it may have at one time been linked.

[aydyn]

Are you implying a Pepe dressed as a clown is "hate speech"...?

Incredible.

This is why half the country doesn't take accusations of "hate" seriously.

[stonogo]

This is exactly how dog whistles are supposed to work. People affected understand the real meaning, and out-groups (along with people who read things pedantically and cannot code switch or process nuance) are bewildered by the heightened emotions surrounding the communications.

This particular dog whistle developed right out loud and lots of people still can't get it. It's amazing to see.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/clown-pepe-honk-honk-clown-wo...

This one does have a minimal standing usage by non-assholes, but there's not much ROI on differentiating, since "honk honk" isn't actionable or interesting criticism regardless of the political opinions of the speaker.

[wholinator2]

This is the first actual explanation of a dogwhistle that I've _ever_ seen, and I've seen the word used many times. I think we could be doing a much better job about educating outgroups on the terminology that's created to label behaviors we want to effect.

Apart from that, the actual concept seems slightly tenuous to me. Like, it seems like anyone could say something is a dogwhistle against some group and the only way to disprove it is to have people of said group publicly communicate that they don't associate the negative meaning of it. I assume this basically never happens because if you belong to a group that's told they're effected, you'd probably trust that. It seems that this would easily lead to fake dogwhistle proliferation and make the waters _very_ muddy. You could say this assists in the effecacy of the method.

However, having seen these memes be used all the time in many places and never once observing an actual hateful meme, i question why the average person would be concerned. Not only have i never seen honkler in the context of naziism, I've never seen a jewish person (or anyone up to this point) speaking out against its usage in such non nazi contexts. And the fact that there's so many people in these comments saying they never knew it was associated with naziism really makes me question if any of us should be concerned with its regular usage.

It just seems to me like an in group meme that a bunch of basement dwellers think is gonna convince people nazis are okay, which the average person will literally never see in any nazi context at all, and which a small group of people are very very upset about, seemingly believing the claims of the basement dwellers. Like, it could be literally any image, and the vast majority of people would never know the difference. How many people are actually behind effected by this? (Genuine question)

If i see a racist meme I'll call it out, but I'm going to go back to enjoying the parts of the internet that are capable of utilizing arbitrary images for fun.

[tailrecursion]

4chan is world famous for hoaxing the left by cooperating with their need to find white supremacy everywhere. The black square, the OK sign, pepe, and many other symbols and memes are examples where 4chan inserted the assertion that XYZ is associated with <the bad people> into the left's hive mind.

The intent is to ridicule the left by having dupes get up in front of everyone and claim that a frog is a <the bad people> hate symbol, or that posting a square of black pixels demonstrates solidarity with anti-racism.

OR, that's what they want us to think, and the truth is that systematic countless postings of a frog is the precursor to <the bad people> world domination.

[stonogo]

4chan has pulled some truly impressive hoaxes, but they are also adept at creating these dog whistles. /r/frenworld was a master class in riding the line between dog whistle and obvious hate speech. Eventually it got banned and the users just moved to /r/honkler and took a lot of the vocabulary with then.

Regardless of what one might think the "correct interpretation" of the cartoon frog might be, actual real-world unapologetic white supremacists have associated themselves with that specific cartoon frog on national television, so the matter isn't limited to some bored pranksters on an image board.

[viraptor]

Various random things become synonymous with hate if there's enough people that reach an understanding that they're used that way. It's in the same area as "are you implying wearing a white sheet is related to hate?" Yes, it became a known enough symbol and it is.

[aydyn]

Yes, but this isn't it. The burden of proof is on you.

[viraptor]

I don't think there's really a burden of proof as such on anyone. Whether something qualifies or not will be a consensus in a given community, location, timeframe, etc.

There's quite a bit of substance behind the idea that it is problematic. (Already linked) But there will be nuance too.

[aydyn]

> There's quite a bit of substance behind the idea that it is problematic. (Already linked)

There isn't substance, it's willful misinterpretation. The joke/hoax/op whatever you want to call it is -right there-. It isn't an attack on a racial or ethnic group, it's an attack on a political identity.

Is attacking liberals now considered "hate"?

They are telling you what they are doing and, as predicted, their opposition is willing to play along.

> Whether something qualifies or not will be a consensus in a given community, location, timeframe, etc.

I feel like this statement is pretty sophomoric.

[viraptor]

> I feel like this statement is pretty sophomoric.

Come on, there's lots of examples for each. Location: fag (UK/US), timeframe: queer (reappropriation), community: see Kendrick Lamar / Delaney controversy.

[EarlKing]

Milk is hateful. Coffee is hateful. I'm pretty sure in five minutes someone will tell me waiting for the light to change on alternate thursdays under a full moon while wearing the color green is also hateful. The dysphemistic dreadmill never ends.

[LightHugger]

these aren't legitimate sources, you might as well link stormfront for proof that antifa drink the blood of infants. those articles are full of insane tenuous leaps of logic so far beyond anything rational.