the twitter mob didn't "decide it was racist," racists started co-opting that symbol to identify themselves to one another in a way that flies under the radar[1]. The term is "dog-whistle."
I can't speak to the case in question, but my guess is that there were other dynamics in play if the "ok symbol" was enough to get him fired.
No, it's more like claiming a regular whistle contains an additional imperceptibly high frequency, with the intent of trolling progressive people into confusing legitimately ordinary whistles for dog whistles.
In far-right internet communities, these sorts of troll-whistles are concocted all the time for their own amusement and to sow discord and backlash. The true dog whistles are the private, opaque lingo they use among themselves.
Sometimes these troll-whistles do grow to become actual dog whistles once news and social media take the bait for a while, but that's only because their manipulation game successfully worked. They're constantly trying to see how far they can push it. They exploit the ability to make something taboo purely through light astroturfing and propaganda work. The current political climate makes it very easy.
I sometimes find myself identifying real dog whistles and getting accused by one side of paranoia for pointing it out (until I provide detailed sources explaining the terminology), and identifying troll-whistles and getting accused by the other side of apologism for saying they've gotten played by trolls.
> but my guess is that there were other dynamics in play if the "ok symbol" was enough to get him fired.
Hypothetically, if it turned out that there were no "other dynamics in play", would you then agree that his firing was wrong and every single twitter user who demanded it is morally responsible?
"The lynch mob demanding they hang the person didn't murder them, the actual two guys doing the hanging did, of course they shouldn't bear responsibility."
Yes but actual racists have since actually started using the symbol, which has the added advantage of them being able to laugh at the mainstream media, and for adding plausible deniability. Though certainly there are non explicitly racists trolls using the symbol as a joke.
We should not let trolls or racist steal whatever symbol they want. What if troll or racist want to steal <whatever>?
Where <whatever> can be the "thumb up/down", "chocolate eggs", "sandals with socks", "the red cross", "black shirts"? They look like stupid racist symbols, but if you had a travel machine and go to 2018, you will not convince anyone that some trolls or racist can steal the "ok symbol" and make it a racist symbol.
I agree, but the only reason the "ok" symbol is racist now is because of alarmist, reactionary people who are looking for something to be offended by. It's like when my kids fight each other, all it takes is for one of them to walk away but they never realize that.
The Nazis stole the swastika. Should we consider it unfair to factor the use of that symbol in to our judgment about whether someone is/supporting/identifying as a Nazi?
The problem is that is is interpreted as a Nazi symbol even when it is used with it historical meaning, even when it has not the Nazi symbol rotation/orientation/details. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
> In Japan, the swastika is also used as a map symbol and is designated by the Survey Act and related Japanese governmental rules to denote a Buddhist temple.
When I have to explain to my aunt over Christmas that The Circle Game isn't some neo-nazi thing, it's a complete failure of the intelligentsia. Regardless of what actual racists are or aren't doing.
I can't speak to the case in question, but my guess is that there were other dynamics in play if the "ok symbol" was enough to get him fired.
[1] https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/okay-h...