4 ms·

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this, but I wonder if the author is suggesting ("dog whistling") that in our (US) current two party system, that only one side is gu

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this, but I wonder if the author is suggesting ("dog whistling") that in our (US) current two party system, that only one side is guilty of it? (I guess my question is actually: I wonder how paragraphs like this are unpacked in the minds of readers, depending on their particular worldviews. Written English is so brutally flawed as a communication medium). Or maybe this is the nuance but I'm not picking it up: > It’s alert to the ways in which demagogic leaders or movements can use propaganda, an older term that can be synonymous with disinformation. Trump (primarily, but certainly not solely). > A crude authoritarian censors free speech. "Crude authoritarian" typically unpacks to Trump in most people's minds, but it's mostly "the left" doing the censorship these days. > A clever one invokes it to play a trick, twisting facts to turn a mob on a subordinated group and, in the end, silence as well as endanger its members. I interpret this as "the left" again, but I wonder if that's what was intended? > Looking back at the rise of fascism and the Holocaust in her 1951 book “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” the political philosopher Hannah Arendt focused on the use of propaganda to “make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism.” This feels like it is pointed at Trump ("the rise of fascism", "the most fantastic statements"), and fair enough, but what many people don't realize is that both sides do this, regularly. What most people don't realize though, is that "if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood" doesn't happen with mainstream falsehoods, because the disproofs aren't published in the mainstream. Why would they be? To find disproofs of many mainstream facts, one must read "alternative media" - but, due to a decade of skilful propaganda, these sources now intuitively evaluate in most people's minds as False by Definition. Or perhaps the author is saying this only with respect to history, and I'm getting all worked up about nothing. The biggest issue right now (other than the widespread lack of appreciation for the importance of truly free speech, and how biased and simplistic mainstream speech is) in my opinion is the lack of realization of the degree to which the ability to restrict free speech now lies in the hands of a very small set of elite companies, who are arguably not entirely politically unbiased. The number of people on HN who seem unable to distinguish between the broad general principle of free speech versus the first amendment is very concerning. EDIT: Wow, the silent majority is fast on the gun today! But alas, the reasons shall forever remain a mystery...

kthejoker2 6y ago
Because you interpreted the neutral words of the article as left and right? It doesn't say what political views the crude authoritarian has. You injected that in, and then claim it's the author dog whistling. (By the way, this is actually, literally "begging the question" - "It must be a dog whistle because I read it this way even though it doesn't use those words or make that claim at all!") That's why you're being downvoted. There's a strong reason the author didn't use the words "Trump" or "left".
- remarkEon 6y ago
  The article literally starts out by pointing out that the left brainstormed ideas for what to do if Trump contests the results of the election, and that the right reacted to this brainstorming by arguing it's part of a broader pattern. There is no way to disentangle the left vs right dynamic in the free speech discussion right now, which is probably why this always gets so heated. People are constantly trying to remove this dynamic because flat out stating one side is "for censorship" while the other isn't rubs up against much of the recent history surrounding free speech and it makes people feel really uncomfortable.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > You injected that in, and then claim it's the author dog whistling. (By the way, this is actually, literally "begging the question" - "It must be a dog whistle because I read it this way even though it doesn't use those words or make that claim at all!") An unexpected take on my words. What I actually did/said: >> Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this, but I wonder if the author is suggesting ("dog whistling") that in our (US) current two party system, that only one side is guilty of it? >> Or perhaps the author is saying this only with respect to history, and I'm getting all worked up about nothing. If you look more closely, you may notice that I am very explicitly pointing out that I am speculating about what the author is getting at, rather than, as you (incorrectly) say I say: - and then [claim it's (it is)] the author dog whistling - It [must be] a dog whistle - ...because [I read it this way] even though it doesn't use those words or make that claim at all (this one is rather ironic) > There's a strong reason the author didn't use the words "Trump" or "left". Assertions like this are suggestive of mind reading ability, and also that political rhetoric that does not say things explicitly does not exist. Something else I said: >> I guess my question is actually: I wonder how paragraphs like this are unpacked in the minds of readers, depending on their particular worldviews. Written English is so brutally flawed as a communication medium. This "how...are unpacked in the mind of the readers" is interesting, and I think might explain why near every single comment I make gets downvoted. I've always thought that it was people not liking my political views, but I think what it actually is, is that people aren't able to read text literally. As I was writing my message, I was "reading between the lines", with suspicion, looking for rhetoric - but I was doing this with full conscious intention, and my statements were explicitly speculative - I was wondering if the author was implying (which often does indeed happen) the things I sensed. If a logical, unbiased person (if there is such a person anymore) considers the article and writing techniques* - I could easily excerpt several examples) in it's entirety, my suspicion doesn't seem terribly inappropriate. Your assessment (and I expect others) on the other hand, is that I have(!) read and said very specific things, that I haven't actually said/done. Not only did you not "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says", you grossly misinterpreted it, and then asserted that misinterpretation as if it was a fact (because to you, it is just that). Of course, there are very stressful times, the world is a complete gongshow, it's hard not to get at each others throats - "these things happen", so I'm not bent out of shape by it. Rather, I'm actually quite relieved, because I now feel quite a bit less confused and frustrated about the world around me, and how people within it behave. Thanks for your insight.

kthejoker2 6y ago

Because you interpreted the neutral words of the article as left and right? It doesn't say what political views the crude authoritarian has. You injected that in, and then claim it's the author dog whistling. (By the way, this is actually, literally "begging the question" - "It must be a dog whistle because I read it this way even though it doesn't use those words or make that claim at all!") That's why you're being downvoted. There's a strong reason the author didn't use the words "Trump" or "left".

remarkEon 6y ago
The article literally starts out by pointing out that the left brainstormed ideas for what to do if Trump contests the results of the election, and that the right reacted to this brainstorming by arguing it's part of a broader pattern. There is no way to disentangle the left vs right dynamic in the free speech discussion right now, which is probably why this always gets so heated. People are constantly trying to remove this dynamic because flat out stating one side is "for censorship" while the other isn't rubs up against much of the recent history surrounding free speech and it makes people feel really uncomfortable.
mistermann 6y ago
> You injected that in, and then claim it's the author dog whistling. (By the way, this is actually, literally "begging the question" - "It must be a dog whistle because I read it this way even though it doesn't use those words or make that claim at all!") An unexpected take on my words. What I actually did/said: >> Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this, but I wonder if the author is suggesting ("dog whistling") that in our (US) current two party system, that only one side is guilty of it? >> Or perhaps the author is saying this only with respect to history, and I'm getting all worked up about nothing. If you look more closely, you may notice that I am very explicitly pointing out that I am speculating about what the author is getting at, rather than, as you (incorrectly) say I say: - and then [claim it's (it is)] the author dog whistling - It [must be] a dog whistle - ...because [I read it this way] even though it doesn't use those words or make that claim at all (this one is rather ironic) > There's a strong reason the author didn't use the words "Trump" or "left". Assertions like this are suggestive of mind reading ability, and also that political rhetoric that does not say things explicitly does not exist. Something else I said: >> I guess my question is actually: I wonder how paragraphs like this are unpacked in the minds of readers, depending on their particular worldviews. Written English is so brutally flawed as a communication medium. This "how...are unpacked in the mind of the readers" is interesting, and I think might explain why near every single comment I make gets downvoted. I've always thought that it was people not liking my political views, but I think what it actually is, is that people aren't able to read text literally. As I was writing my message, I was "reading between the lines", with suspicion, looking for rhetoric - but I was doing this with full conscious intention, and my statements were explicitly speculative - I was wondering if the author was implying (which often does indeed happen) the things I sensed. If a logical, unbiased person (if there is such a person anymore) considers the article and writing techniques* - I could easily excerpt several examples) in it's entirety, my suspicion doesn't seem terribly inappropriate. Your assessment (and I expect others) on the other hand, is that I have(!) read and said very specific things, that I haven't actually said/done. Not only did you not "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says", you grossly misinterpreted it, and then asserted that misinterpretation as if it was a fact (because to you, it is just that). Of course, there are very stressful times, the world is a complete gongshow, it's hard not to get at each others throats - "these things happen", so I'm not bent out of shape by it. Rather, I'm actually quite relieved, because I now feel quite a bit less confused and frustrated about the world around me, and how people within it behave. Thanks for your insight.