5 ms·

I see how that could be the case but once we start delving into numerology we start to sound like conspiracy theorists.

ceejayoz 6y ago
14/88 is hardly a conspiracy theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words
guerrilla 6y ago
This is why they use it. It's the perfect dog whistle. Google 1488 tattoos to get an idea of just how serious and prevalent it is. [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics [2]. https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=1488+tattoos&atb=v209-1&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=1488+tattoos&atb=v209-1&iax...
- mcphage 6y ago
  Sure, but with those tattoos, the 14 & 88 are significant and inescapable. There’s no ambiguity and their presence is not hidden. But once you’re counting the number of words in a tweet, you’re talking about things much more hidden. It doesn’t work well as a dog whistle if the metaphorical dogs can’t hear it, either.
  - bduerst 6y ago
    https://imgur.com/Z8AICes https://imgur.com/Z8AICes Plenty of ambiguity there. I think you may need to evaluate what your motivation is to need to keep disbelieving that racist dogwhistles can actually be ambiguous, especially considering they are that way by design.
    - mcphage 6y ago
      You just linked to a picture of a tattoo of the number 1488... I don’t see any ambiguity. Did you intend to link to a different picture?
      - bduerst 6y ago
        A tattoo of just 1488, without any racist symbology, is ambiguous. There is nothing to make it distinctive from any other number. Help me understand what you think an ambigous tattoo of 1488 should look like?
        mcphage 6y ago
        Well, along the lines of counting the number of words in a tweet, maybe 14 stars? And then chains, where the linked chains look kinda like 8s? Something where the 14 and 88 are present, but not obvious unless you think to look for them.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/02/15/we-must-secure-border-and-build-wall-make-america-safe-again https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/02/15/we-must-secure-border-an... is a good example of plausible deniability. Fourteen word headline, starting with "We must secure..." Was it intentional? No one will likely ever know.
        mcphage 6y ago
        So there's two separate things being talked about: 1. Is it intentional? 2. Is it a dog whistle? So for instance, the fact that there were 88 Facebook ads. Was that intentional? Most likely. Is it a dogwhistle? Not really, because even people who see the ads have no idea how many ads there were. Even if you're the person who the dogwhistle is for, how do you find that signal? It really doesn't count as anything more than sad, racist mental masturbation. Now, take the press release that you shared. Is it intentional? 100%. Is it a dogwhistle? Almost definitely. While most people won't count the # of words in the title, the fact that it starts with the same 3 words "We Must Secure" will tip off people who want to look for the 14 words, and hint that there's something else there. (Really, same 4 words, but those 3 are the ones that count). Hell, even if it wasn't 14 words, starting it with "We Must Secure" is probably enough. Do they have plausible deniability? Well, in the sense that you can't prove what goes on in their head—but nobody is under any illusions about what they're trying to do, and nobody believed their claims of innocence.
taurath 6y ago
Yup. It’s a false choice, like convincing someone you’re not paranoid. It’s an interesting trick.
dragonwriter 6y ago
That is an mechanism which insulates even well-documented conspiracies that use numerical symbols as identification banners, which is probably why certain of them do exactly that.

14/88 is hardly a conspiracy theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words

guerrilla 6y ago

This is why they use it. It's the perfect dog whistle. Google 1488 tattoos to get an idea of just how serious and prevalent it is. [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics [2]. https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=1488+tattoos&atb=v209-1&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=1488+tattoos&atb=v209-1&iax...

mcphage 6y ago
Sure, but with those tattoos, the 14 & 88 are significant and inescapable. There’s no ambiguity and their presence is not hidden. But once you’re counting the number of words in a tweet, you’re talking about things much more hidden. It doesn’t work well as a dog whistle if the metaphorical dogs can’t hear it, either.
- bduerst 6y ago
  https://imgur.com/Z8AICes https://imgur.com/Z8AICes Plenty of ambiguity there. I think you may need to evaluate what your motivation is to need to keep disbelieving that racist dogwhistles can actually be ambiguous, especially considering they are that way by design.
  - mcphage 6y ago
    You just linked to a picture of a tattoo of the number 1488... I don’t see any ambiguity. Did you intend to link to a different picture?
    - bduerst 6y ago
      A tattoo of just 1488, without any racist symbology, is ambiguous. There is nothing to make it distinctive from any other number. Help me understand what you think an ambigous tattoo of 1488 should look like?
      - mcphage 6y ago
        Well, along the lines of counting the number of words in a tweet, maybe 14 stars? And then chains, where the linked chains look kinda like 8s? Something where the 14 and 88 are present, but not obvious unless you think to look for them.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/02/15/we-must-secure-border-and-build-wall-make-america-safe-again https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/02/15/we-must-secure-border-an... is a good example of plausible deniability. Fourteen word headline, starting with "We must secure..." Was it intentional? No one will likely ever know.
        mcphage 6y ago
        So there's two separate things being talked about: 1. Is it intentional? 2. Is it a dog whistle? So for instance, the fact that there were 88 Facebook ads. Was that intentional? Most likely. Is it a dogwhistle? Not really, because even people who see the ads have no idea how many ads there were. Even if you're the person who the dogwhistle is for, how do you find that signal? It really doesn't count as anything more than sad, racist mental masturbation. Now, take the press release that you shared. Is it intentional? 100%. Is it a dogwhistle? Almost definitely. While most people won't count the # of words in the title, the fact that it starts with the same 3 words "We Must Secure" will tip off people who want to look for the 14 words, and hint that there's something else there. (Really, same 4 words, but those 3 are the ones that count). Hell, even if it wasn't 14 words, starting it with "We Must Secure" is probably enough. Do they have plausible deniability? Well, in the sense that you can't prove what goes on in their head—but nobody is under any illusions about what they're trying to do, and nobody believed their claims of innocence.

taurath 6y ago

Yup. It’s a false choice, like convincing someone you’re not paranoid. It’s an interesting trick.

dragonwriter 6y ago

That is an mechanism which insulates even well-documented conspiracies that use numerical symbols as identification banners, which is probably why certain of them do exactly that.