Re:Gab has been hacked and 70GB of data leaked
by Schiendelman on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @11:44AM
(#26317210)
They called the attack on them slanderous. Interestingly they didn't actually deny it.
This is exactly how dog whistles work, dude...
Re:Gab has been hacked and 70GB of data leaked
by ttt0 on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @11:54AM
(#26317327)
Yes, because attacking them for that stage is slanderous? That's what slander is.
I haven't seen anyone picking up that "dog whistle" besides people like you.
edit: search on twitter the phrase "cpac rune based" or "cpac stage based". If it was a dog whistle, I would expect someone to pick up on it and call it "based". Yet the only people who are talking about it are the people who are making those stupid accusations. Literally no one cared about it until you made a big deal out of it. And still barely anyone cares.
Re:Gab has been hacked and 70GB of data leaked
by Schiendelman on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @12:57PM
(#26318159)
I would NOT expect someone to talk about it publicly. That's why CPAC would hedge and not openly deny they used a Nazi symbol. This is how a group that knows they need to hide communicate with one another.
Re:Gab has been hacked and 70GB of data leaked
by ttt0 on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @01:42PM
(#26318768)
You know what? You convinced me, you're right. All those Jewish people that are involved in the CPAC are totally followers of Hitler's ideology. You're clearly a very smart and intelligent person, so I don't need to care if you will make yourself look like a fool, just like I don't need to care about this joke of a conference that called itself "America Uncancelled" and then proceeded to cancel people.
Please kill all of my snarky comments in this thread with downvotes, as they were inappropriate and it's a flamewar that has no place on HN.
Re:Gab has been hacked and 70GB of data leaked
by Schiendelman on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @02:05PM
(#26319034)
Please don't use straw men on HN. I'm not claiming that, and this isn't a flamewar.
Okay, so what? Should I start adding all the random incidents where people made something that was coincidentally shaped like swastika to the Wikipedia article as examples of modern usage?
> CPAC hasn't come out with a denial that their stage was that shape intentionally.
They did, they called it slanderous.
> slander (noun) - the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
CPAC cancelled some black dude for anti-semitism. They didn't do that after he was saying anti-Christian and anti-white stuff, only after he started saying that Judaism is illegitimate or whatever. But yes, I'm supposed to believe that they're using Nazi imagery on purpose.