Notwithstanding its origins, it was subsequently adopted by racists as a rallying sign. Context matters.

Not going to lie but it’s apparent you will see racism wherever you want to despite the evidence.

What evidence? That it used to be (and still is in many contexts) totally non-racist? I agree with that. But it's also been coopted (humorously, but it still is a rallying sign).

To this day, the swastika is still a religious sign in Hindu and Buddhist cultures. It also carries a nefarious meaning in other contexts.

"It's just a joke bro" is what fascism has always done to mask its real intent.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-...

I agree that a bunch of people from 4chan spreading misinformation online could be considered trolling. Taking it into the real world is a step I have a hard time believing. What would the troll's logic be? "I'm going to make all these suckers think I'm a racist"? That seems like an unusual step from anonymous online activity.

Trolling, at least in its original meaning, is not "spreading misinformation". It's saying things for the sake of provoking anger in other people that you despise or you just don't connect emotionally with. So it makes perfect sense to me for rightwing trolls to excite anger and confusion in leftwing people by appropriating a completely innocuous gesture and using it as a provocation. It doesn't really have to mean anything or to capture or express your true beliefs- the important thing is just that others will go nuts over it.

So the goal is to troll anti-racists. That makes it an anti-anti-racist symbol. I'll let you factor out the double negative.

If you troll pro-life people, are you pro-death?