That's the guy, but he also discussed the alt-right and the use of pepe in a press conference the other day. The fact that we're talking about the alt-right isn't because of the Clinton campaign; it's because of the Trump campaign. The alt-right has come out and said this is their time because of Trump. They have come out and said they're using pepe as a specific symbol and have explained why.
This isn't a fake story. They've been very clear about the fact that alt-right is code for racist.
I think that we're focusing on the wrong things here and by addressing a very small issue perpetrated by a very loud, obnoxious minority we are giving them the attention that they both crave and do not deserve. I also wouldn't equate all of the alt-right with racism, there is some merit to sticking to traditional values in lieu of immediately adopting values of incoming cultures that are often times radically different, to the point of incompatibility. To many alt-righters it's about preservation, not persecution. Just to give an example that pertains to previously discussed issues, no matter how you slice the cake, it's simply impossible for gender equality and Sharia law to co-exist - they are mutually contradictory. On one hand, freedom of religion dictates that everyone should be able to worship in whatever ways they deem fit without persecution, on the other, that worship is often times at odds with western standards of life, or even the law. If a given imaginary religion required human sacrifice as part of worship, would stopping that be considered bigotry or self-defense? At some point something's got to give, the rule of the law has to take precedence over whatever traditions migrants might have. Immigration is a two-sided contract in my eyes, it has to work as a mutual effort. Migrant are more than welcome to come as long as they do so legally and do not impose their standards of life on others. They made the decision, be it willingly or not, to migrate to a country that follows certain rules of conduct and need to adapt. On the other side of the coin, the nation also needs to make a conscious effort to make them feel welcome and not get in their way too much - they have their duties, but also their freedoms. It's a very complicated issue, possibly for a whole new thread entirely - my point was that some people who are labelled as racist today aren't necessarily racist (in the context of innate superiority/inferiority of races) so much as they're are threatened by a vastly different culture entering their territory - a phobia, for sure, but not without merit. Just recently there was a case of a small muslim community making demands regarding pets, asking non-muslims to not walk their dogs in public as it is considered unclean and indecent. For someone who has always walked their dog, this is an invasion of their freedom, and there is no consensus to be found - either the muslims or the non-muslims have to stop going to the same park, and who decides who gets to have that privilege. Should they institute curfew? Use the park in shifts? Who gets to use it when, and isn't that just segregation? It's mindboggling and awful, really.
EDIT: I'm sorry about the typos, I'm typing this on a 4.5" smartphone. I'm doing my best to correct them, but I'm fighting a losing battle against an auto-correct that's set to two languages simultaneously. My apologies.
