- Date published:
10:55 pm, November 29th, 2015 - 70 comments
Categories: International, internet, Satire, social media lolz, Syria, war - Tags: 4chan, isis, rubber duckies
Those lovable scamps at 4chan have taken to replacing the heads of Isis fighters in internet images with rubber duckies. Isis want our fear and they get our derision. Nice; if any of these cowards get martyred in the next few days the first thing they’ll hear in heaven is 72 virgins laughing at them.
Dunno if it beats bombs, but an organisation as social media conscious as Isis has got to hate having the piss taken out of their ‘heroes’ on the interwebs. Cool, eh?
If they really wanted to insult the jihadists perhaps replace their heads with pig heads would be more suitable.
The ducks kind of remind me of The Waterboy
I think the point is to insult Isis, not the entire Muslim world. Being compared to Adam Sandler probably hurts too, so well done.
The Anonymous “hack” of a bunch of supposed “ISIS” twitter accounts was an equally useless stunt. I guess it makes some nerds feel useful
I read something the other day about ISIS and supporters generating 2.8 million messages a day on Twitter.
And then there’s the apps they’re using.
SIS (also known as the Islamic State) has been using the messaging app as a means of communicating and distributing its propaganda material since September, when Telegram introduced a “channel” feature letting users broadcast messages to an unlimited number of subscribers. Telegram is similar to WhatsApp but is known for its high level of encryption and broadcasting channels. The most popular ISIS-affiliated channels had thousands of followers.
Until recently, Telegram, which has about 62 million monthly active users, wasn’t seeking out ISIS channels to suspend.
“Privacy is ultimately more important than our fear of bad things happening, like terrorism,” Pavel said, according to VentureBeat. “If you look at ISIS, yes, there’s a war going on in the Middle East. Ultimately, ISIS will find a way to communicate with its cells, and if any means doesn’t feel secure to them, they’ll [find something else]. We shouldn’t feel guilty about it. We’re still doing the right thing, protecting our users’ privacy.”
now i am sure this new “photoshopping ducks” strategy will stop them.
dunno about stopping them, i can only find myself shaking (non-stop) my head at this page
thumbs down on the title.
Why’s that, CV? You don’t think Muslims have a sense of humour?
it’s trivial whaleoil-style clickbait
while you’re on a roll TRP, why not put up a cartoon of the Prophet, coz hilarious*.
*Not actually suggesting this be done.
People who believe ridiculous things can expect ridicule. ‘Twas ever thus.
Well, could put up a cartoon of a different prophet of Islam – only a couple hog all the screen tiem.
As a NZ muslim I think you are all shit Te reo putake, especially when the source is a board/community that indulge’s and cultivates casual misogyny and racism.
Let’s look at their glorious plumbing of words like “cumdumpster” “tits to GTFO” in a censorship filter that made words more offensive. What larks and scamps http://twentytwo.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-158-tits-or-gtfo-the-logics-of-misogyny-on-4chans-random-b/
+1. It’s kind of like using Whale Oil as a source of humourous political activism. It doesn’t work.
And yet some people find it funny, as the comments here show. That’s the problem with your pompous response, bastables. The rubber duckies stand on their own as a piece of humour. That’s how humour works. A joke is either funny or it is not. Not everybody laughs, but as long as someone does, the joke has proved that it is funny.
I don’t like 4chan, don’t go there myself and wouldn’t recommend it as a positive place. But in this rare case, they’ve done something good.
And I’m not the only one to have spotted what they’ve done. It’s been widely reported in both the msm and social media. I didn’t get it from 4chan, I first saw it on fb and the ‘my boy joined Isis’ one was the first one I saw and I laughed. It’s satire and it’s a concept that works as humour. However, I agree with others that it’s unlikely to bring the caliphate down. We may still need bombs for that.
I think you are missing the main critiques of this post.
Maybe. What are they?
Is this post a first and new ‘low’ for The Standard?
If so, I am seriously questioning myself if I want to visit TS again.
To the originators, creators or current managers of this website, what – if any – is the standard of posts for The Standard??
TS is a loose collective – authors post what they want to post. It would have to be extreme for a moderator to take down a post once up (I believe it did happen once, but that was before my time). TRP likes to be more confrontational than most of us.
To an extent I agree with you – I don’t like this post. But before getting too precious note that the story has been covered by both The Herald and The Guardian (for example).
Currently top story on The Guardian by number of hits. So there we go.
the post is fine, the title is very poorly chosen and unnecessary.
How so, CV? The title is one of 4chans names for what they are doing. I don’t see the point in wussing out by pretending its something it’s not. And if you’re worried about some sort of misuse of the original arabic phrase, killers using it while decapitating their victims is genuinely blasphemous.
For me, as there is no god, I’m not bothered by the phrase, or it’s use or misuse. The actual physical harm humans do to each other is far more bothersome to me.
4chan is a collective who frequently engage in incredibly vicious harassment of vulnerable groups. They created Gamergate specifically to personally attack women who dared to point out that computer games can be a bit sexist.
I don’t think people need to take any direction from them about what’s funny or appropriate.
Agree entirely about 4chan, Stephanie. It’s not my kinda place and I sourced my post mainly from articles in the NZ Herald, the Guardian, TVNZ and a variety of other media outlets. However, readers can make up their own mind about whether what 4chan are doing with the rubber duckies is humorous. Or indeed, appropriate.
While I agree with you in principle about 4chan in general, I don’t see how that makes this particular title offensive. But I don’t really have much respect for religion, (even though I generally keep my own mockery of it to a minimum) so I might not be the best judge.
So don’t read it.
Can’t agree. The title is taken directly from a cartoon shown within the post.
Presumably the Guardian and the Herald are reporting the news (4chan mocking Islam), not taking part in the mocking themselves.
I thought about it briefly last night as well – I recognise that some people won’t be comfortable with it and I’m not going to disrespect your reasons for that.
On the other hand the target here is obviously ISIS – not Islam. In my mind there is a very big distinction between the two.
The title however is pretty loaded … it basically translates as “God quacks like a duck”. And there will be many people, not necessarily Muslim, who might find that offensive.
Otherwise what R0b has just said.
+1 to you, r0b and CV.
There’s no accounting for individual differences.
If one of the aims of The Standard is to inform, then i have to say i was informed, as I’d not come across this interesting approach before viewing the post. The rubber-duck-ifying or whatever it is, constitutes an approach that makes a valid counter-statement without leaving the street strewn with body parts. Thats gotta be an improvement.
So thank you Te Reo Putake for the informative post.
Please read Stephanie’s comment above about 4chan’s role in gamergate and harrassment of women.
Better than calling women the ‘S’ word because they show their ankles off I guess.
Keep it up!
Thanks for the laugh. 🙂
The images don’t seem castrated to me – will just get more airtime – the opposite of what should happen – remember before the net, before instant communication and worldwide coverage – that’s where the propaganda should be aimed at imo. Plus I agree with CV re the title – just wrong.
Yeah, I don’t really see the point of it as propaganda. Who is it aimed it, and what is it sposed to achieve?
To ‘piss off’ ISIS propagandists? lol.
To ‘piss off’ people who are susceptible to ISIS propaganda? Seems less than smart.
Oh yeah, it’s just 4channers big-noting about the size of their tiny dicks. I’m sure ISIS are quakeing
The target doesn’t have to be ISIS, nor anyone sympathetic to them. Quite the opposite … ISIS have gotten a lot of air time as a pretty scary mob. And in the aftermath of Paris it’s pretty damned real. That’s what terrorism is intended to achieve.
But the best antidote for fear is laughter.
“The target doesn’t have to be ISIS, nor anyone sympathetic to them.”
It should be the latter, if you want to win. They are the only group that really counts, that’s the battlefield.
Fearful people can be easily manipulated into making fearful mistakes. For instance invading Iraq in the aftermath of 911.
Defusing that fear is useful on any battlefield.
Fear should ideally be defused by the truth; the truth is that ‘friendly countries’ like Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE have all received tacit US approval to feed ISIL/Daesh with fighters, money and arms in order to destabilise Syria and become a tool to take out Assad.
I would have thought that the ‘truth’ you claim would actually add to the fear, CV. But as it’s not true, it won’t.
Sorry, TRP. There is so much evidence in support of CV’s assertion that if you actually go looking on The Tube you will be unable to avoid it.
According to the standard nonconspiracy theorist, I haven’t seen it yet, so it can’t exist.
So much evidence … on Youtube. Now that’s genuinely funny, George!
Not nearly as sidesplittingly funny as your certain knowledge, having no doubt researched the entire thing, that there is no evidence of anything on it.
Although the pictures themselves are amusing and I have no problem with “Allahu Quackbar” because gods are anything but great, the question about the propaganda value of this approach is a valid one. I much prefer this guy’s take on it: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/29/philippe-joseph-salazar-essay-paris-attacks-isis.
Fuck, yes. And photoshopping them into rubber ducks is “sarcasm that will lead us nowhere” when it comes down to it.
On can still treat the western men and women supporting Daesh as traitors, but they can care also sbehown as rubber duckies…..an army of rubber duckies…..it changes nothing, but it shows that humor is still alive.
and in dark times laughing is needed.
During WW2, allied nations cartoonists mocked Hitler (and Stalin for that matter) relentlessly. I don’t think the intention of 4Chan is to lead us anywhere, neither was it the intention of Charlie Hebdo. These cartoons are an expression of free speech. That’s it. Christians get mocked all the time for their beliefs, as do Jews, Buddhists, Hindus’ etc etc and no-one particularly gives a damn. There is a double standard here, and the trigger is one particular religion.
Not a good idea to mock the Buddha while in Myanmar though, Daniel.
The social psychological effects of this act of parody will depend upon whose response we are interested in.
People who are the target of the terror attacks may feel less afraid (because of the deflationary impact in the depiction of the sources of terror). Then again, some may feel more fearful because they worry that it will provoke more recruits.
Those of us who feel that we are largely ‘spectators’ (i.e., not prime targets of terrorism) may find the parody usefully humorous and undermining as an ‘attack’ on the brutality of the events we ‘witness’ via the media.
But the other obvious audience is the audience that may matter most. If I were a young Muslim (perhaps a first or second generation migrant to a western country and perhaps feeling ‘other’, marginalised and humiliated in my identity) the question is whether or not my seeing this kind of parody would make me more or less likely to be kindly disposed to the ideology of ISIS?
Does prudence or the defiant assertion of our values (e.g., ‘freedom of speech (and satire)’) come first? And, of course, there may be a ‘middle ground’ where the latter is done with enough reflection that it takes into account the former.
I don’t think this kind of parody achieves that balance.
“But the other obvious audience is the audience that may matter most. If I were a young Muslim (perhaps a first or second generation migrant to a western country and perhaps feeling ‘other’, marginalised and humiliated in my identity) the question is whether or not my seeing this kind of parody would make me more or less likely to be kindly disposed to the ideology of ISIS?”
yes hard to imagine some insult or slight not being perceived and this playing into the memes already created about what the ‘west’ think of Muslims
Ridiculing ‘ISIS’ might have some effect if they were doing what they do because they wanted to. But that isn’t why they’re doing it.
Created, trained, supplied and paid by the US (which also drops pamphlets warning them to move out when a ‘bombing raid’ is due in 45 minutes), they have been chosen for their task to appeal to our inbuilt racism, foment our fear and keep our eyes off the real (yes, white, I ‘m afraid, and largely English-speaking ) terrorists, yes, the ones forcing TPPA down our throats, no surprises there.
Please be aware that when our Syrian refugees arrive, they will do so knowing that we are in a coalition to bomb Syrian civilians (while pretend-bombing ISIS) who haven’t been able to get out yet, so the US, Israel and EU can go in and put their oil pipeline through without resistance.
It might be good to let them know quietly that we wanted no part of this and are working at getting rid of the government that lied our way into it.
What a devious plot. Very ingenious. Has Cigarette-Smoking Man still not retired yet?
Yes, it is. So ingenious that you will kneejerkingly disbelieve it without the need to research it at all. 🙂
“You can fool most of the people some of the time, and some of the people most of the time, but you can’t fool (the one person who is so determined to fool himself that he has it already done before you can reach him).” – Anon
“First, cultivate a reputation for lying. Then tell people the truth – they will never believe you. Truth will become the new lie.”
– John Quay
citation, rumour, guesstimate or youtube video required:
“(which also drops pamphlets warning them to move out when a ‘bombing raid’ is due in 45 minutes)”
or google’ US drops pamphlets’ and take your pick on which story you want to read.
For what it’s worth, I like the pictures. Daesh are pompous arseholes who take themselves very seriously. Ridicule is good and Duckface travels well. I hope the victims of their shitty behaviour get to see it and get a laugh out of it.
I do have a problem with the title because ‘Allahu Akbar’ has got baggage. It’s the rallying cry of Islamists, including Daesh – but it was also used by the Iranian Green Movement when they protested the 2009 election results who used it as a cry of defiance because they couldn’t be arrested for using it.
Tell you a better way to upset ISIS than posting rubber duck photos: the U.S. and its vassals (including New Zealand) should stop supporting what it insists is “the moderate Syrian opposition”, which is actually not moderate at all, but is the al-Nusra Front, AKA Daesh, AKA al Qaeda, AKA ISIS, AKA IS, AKA ISIL, AKA ISIS.
The al-Nusra front is not part of the moderate Syrian opposition, but they do, on occasion, work with some sections of the opposition to achieve tactical military gains. The front is affiliated with al Qaeda and rejects and, indeed, regularly fights ISIS, who tried to co-opt al-Nusra in 2013.
So, all in all, a contribution up to your usual standards of accuracy, moz 😉
So, as you acknowledge, what you call the “moderate Syrian opposition” works with al-Nusra, which is an offshoot of al-Qaeda.
By the way, have you signed up to fight the good fight with al-Nusra and the other “moderates” yet? And if not, why not?
“So, as you acknowledge, what you call the “moderate Syrian opposition” works with al-Nusra …”
I didn’t write that. Read it again, slowly.
No matter how many times you read it, or how slowly, that’s exactly what you stated….
Comprehension prob’s Moz? Look closely at the words ‘some sections’ and have a think about the disparate nature of the Syrian opposition. Pretty much all the various groupings and militias have in common is their hatred of Assad. But only a few are prepared to cooperate with al Nusra or ISIS. That’s part of the reason for the ‘moderate’ tag.
The “disparate” Syrian opposition is supporting ISIS—and the United States. There is no moderate opposition fighting against the government of Syria.
Meh. Look it up. They have the internet on computers now.
I suggest you read something a little more rigorous and authoritative than the Grauniad. Glenn Greenwald or Noam Chomsky would be a great start.
Why? It’s clearly not helping you!
What Foreign Policy “Debate” Means on Face the Nation
by GLENN GREENWALD, The Intercept, Nov. 30 2015, 4:46 a.m.
CBS’ Face the Nation is the most-watched Sunday morning news television show in the U.S., attracting roughly 3 million viewers each week. On this Sunday morning, the show is focused on foreign policy, as it interviews Ben Carson, Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham on the issues of ISIS and refugees. As it always does, the program has assembled a panel of “experts” to discuss those matters; one of them, Jeffrey Goldberg, proudly announced its composition this morning:
In addition to host John Dickerson and Goldberg himself, the rest of the panel is composed of former Bush 43 speechwriter and current Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, and former Bush 41 speechwriter and current Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan.
Aside from the glaring demographic homogeneity — all middle-aged-or-older white people who have spent their careers in corporatized Washington establishments — there is a suffocating ideological and viewpoint homogeneity on this panel as well, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. All of the panelists, for instance, were vocal, aggressive advocates of the invasion of Iraq (as were all three GOP presidential candidates featured on this morning’s show).
Goldberg, in a 2006 profile of Gerson, wrote that “Gerson, like Bush, has never wavered. ‘The people of the Middle East are not exceptions to this great trend of history, and, by standing up for these things, we are on the right side of history,’ he said.” Ignatius repeatedly used his Post platform to argue for the war: Eight months after the invasion, he wrote a gushing profile of Paul Wolfowitz (“a rare animal in Washington — a genuine intellectual in a top policymaking job”) and decreed, “This may be the most idealistic war fought in modern times”; in 2004, he proclaimed, “I don’t regret my support for toppling Hussein.” Noonan, in February 2003, told Slate: “I have come to the conclusion that we must move. I do not imagine an invasion will be swift and produce minimal losses. But I believe not stepping in is, at this point, more dangerous than stepping in.”
Other than Tom Friedman, Goldberg himself was probably the journalist most responsible for tricking Americans into supporting the war by circulating blatant falsehoods under the guise of “reporting,” using his New Yorker perch to legitimize claims of the non-existent Saddam/al Qaeda alliance (which he continued to tout as late as 2010) and the Iraqi nuclear program. The Face the Nation host, John Dickerson, was a reporter for Time magazine at the time and therefore pretended not to express opinions about Iraq, but he disseminated “objective” reporting like this: ……