To believe that dog-whistles exist as an actual thing used effectively, one would also have to believe: a) A group of people (e.g. white supremacists) do not a

To believe that dog-whistles exist as an actual thing used effectively, one would also have to believe: a) A group of people (e.g. white supremacists) do not already know that the dog-whistler (e.g. a politician) is a member or sympathizer of their group b) That this person who sympathizes with this secret group wants to signal sympathy with this secret group, but cannot do it directly (that is, by email or letter or direct contact), and so must somehow signal through public words and deeds c) This signal will somehow, hopefully, be invisible to everyone who is listening except for members of the secret group The prototypical example is politicians talking about "thugs" and "welfare queens" as dog-whistling a racist contempt for black people. I can definitely accept that using such language could be such a signal, especially with the context of aligned policy pronouncements, but it's pretty blatant and not a dog-whistle.