3 ms·

Because you missed it, let me help you out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics Parent com

by legodt 10y ago

Because you missed it, let me help you out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics Parent comment was using a series of phrases that are repeated to reinforce the idea of importance of cultural homogeneity and keeping out groups out in the name of traditionalism and "values."

welanes 10y ago
I don't see it. I think you may be projecting your own interpretation on to the parent comment.
- legodt 10y ago
  Okay I'm going to spell out a major factor then. What this poster was implying that they are against immigrants because they believe immigrants are inherently prone to corruption based on their country of origin. This ignores centuries of confounding factors such as possible imperial rule, internal resources collapse, or failed economic experiments and makes it purely about nationality. Somewhat importantly, op only listed PoC's nationalities. Dog whistle racism, or coded racism, is all about subtext
  - welanes 10y ago
    So here's what he/she said: > "Why some places are corrupt and others aren't is poorly understood magic of some sort. One fairly decent guess is something like "cultural factors" - Danish bureaucrats aren't corrupt because they expect that other non-corrupt Danes would punish them for it." How did you make the leap from 'cultural factors' to "immigrants are inherently prone to corruption based on their country of origin."? There is nothing about inherent inclinations. The point - one I have firsthand experience with - is that the institutions the West have ("they expect that other non-corrupt Danes would punish them for it") are lacking in many parts of the world.The reason for this are complex - something the OP alludes to - but culture definitely plays a part. Why my taxi driver gets hustled for bribes at gunpoint when in Nigeria but not in Laos, or why a lost wallet was handed in at a Kyoto train station but not in my hometown is more a matter of culture than of chance. We can have that discussion without crying racist.
    - mercer 10y ago
      > We can have that discussion without crying racist. I hope so, but threads like these are depressing. It's a good thing to point out that argument <x> is often used as veiled racism, or to explain how the underlying dynamic might be more racist than we might be aware of. But what I'm seeing here is false equivalence: "because racists say <x>, <x> is a racist argument merely by association. or too close for comfort to be able to discuss at all." This shuts down any conversation and the person holding view <x> walks away feeling misjudged and quite likely still holding view <x> because we humans have trouble separating a good argument from any judgment that comes with it. I would very much like it if we could avoid that here, even if we know for a fact that the person bringing forward argument <x> is an actual racist.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Frondo 10y ago
  That's the point of dog-whistle politics. That's exactly it. If you're not already part of the subculture primed to pick up on these cues--if you don't hear the dog whistle--you don't get what the speaker/writer is saying. The famous Lee Atwater quote is a good example of this (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater). It's plausible deniability for espousing racist views in public.
  - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
    Yeah no, I'm not that complicated of a person. When I say that my community has better culture, it's because I like the cultural factors we have. People here don't care if I'm openly bisexual, whereas Uganda has lynch mobs that will set you on fire. Or how I can easily speak the truth as I see it on religious matters here, but get sentenced to torture for atheistic twitter messages in Saudi Arabia. If having these preferences gets me called racist, then fine. Whatever. All I wanted to do was remind people that these cultural differences exist, and that I really do not want an Eternal September that threatens them. Hell, I even think that America probably should have somewhat looser immigration laws than they currently do.
    - Frondo 10y ago
      Sure, you get the freedom to say and think whatever you want, about whoever you want. So do I. So go ahead, by all means, have whatever views you want. Espouse whatever views you want. I don't really care, because I don't know you and will never, ever need to work with you, do business with you, invite you to my wedding or holiday dinner, whatever. All that said, dog whistle politics is a real thing, even if you or other people here don't know about it. And not knowing about the specific cues just means you're not part of the group that'll respond to that dog whistle.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by legodt 10y ago

welanes 10y ago

I don't see it. I think you may be projecting your own interpretation on to the parent comment.

legodt 10y ago
Okay I'm going to spell out a major factor then. What this poster was implying that they are against immigrants because they believe immigrants are inherently prone to corruption based on their country of origin. This ignores centuries of confounding factors such as possible imperial rule, internal resources collapse, or failed economic experiments and makes it purely about nationality. Somewhat importantly, op only listed PoC's nationalities. Dog whistle racism, or coded racism, is all about subtext
- welanes 10y ago
  So here's what he/she said: > "Why some places are corrupt and others aren't is poorly understood magic of some sort. One fairly decent guess is something like "cultural factors" - Danish bureaucrats aren't corrupt because they expect that other non-corrupt Danes would punish them for it." How did you make the leap from 'cultural factors' to "immigrants are inherently prone to corruption based on their country of origin."? There is nothing about inherent inclinations. The point - one I have firsthand experience with - is that the institutions the West have ("they expect that other non-corrupt Danes would punish them for it") are lacking in many parts of the world.The reason for this are complex - something the OP alludes to - but culture definitely plays a part. Why my taxi driver gets hustled for bribes at gunpoint when in Nigeria but not in Laos, or why a lost wallet was handed in at a Kyoto train station but not in my hometown is more a matter of culture than of chance. We can have that discussion without crying racist.
  - mercer 10y ago
    > We can have that discussion without crying racist. I hope so, but threads like these are depressing. It's a good thing to point out that argument <x> is often used as veiled racism, or to explain how the underlying dynamic might be more racist than we might be aware of. But what I'm seeing here is false equivalence: "because racists say <x>, <x> is a racist argument merely by association. or too close for comfort to be able to discuss at all." This shuts down any conversation and the person holding view <x> walks away feeling misjudged and quite likely still holding view <x> because we humans have trouble separating a good argument from any judgment that comes with it. I would very much like it if we could avoid that here, even if we know for a fact that the person bringing forward argument <x> is an actual racist.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Frondo 10y ago
That's the point of dog-whistle politics. That's exactly it. If you're not already part of the subculture primed to pick up on these cues--if you don't hear the dog whistle--you don't get what the speaker/writer is saying. The famous Lee Atwater quote is a good example of this (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater). It's plausible deniability for espousing racist views in public.
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  Yeah no, I'm not that complicated of a person. When I say that my community has better culture, it's because I like the cultural factors we have. People here don't care if I'm openly bisexual, whereas Uganda has lynch mobs that will set you on fire. Or how I can easily speak the truth as I see it on religious matters here, but get sentenced to torture for atheistic twitter messages in Saudi Arabia. If having these preferences gets me called racist, then fine. Whatever. All I wanted to do was remind people that these cultural differences exist, and that I really do not want an Eternal September that threatens them. Hell, I even think that America probably should have somewhat looser immigration laws than they currently do.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    Sure, you get the freedom to say and think whatever you want, about whoever you want. So do I. So go ahead, by all means, have whatever views you want. Espouse whatever views you want. I don't really care, because I don't know you and will never, ever need to work with you, do business with you, invite you to my wedding or holiday dinner, whatever. All that said, dog whistle politics is a real thing, even if you or other people here don't know about it. And not knowing about the specific cues just means you're not part of the group that'll respond to that dog whistle.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]