3 ms·

This whole dog whistle thing is just a way to put whatever interpretation on someone's words you feel like.

hobs 5y ago
No, it was literally a strategy explicitly used and still used by political operatives to say what they want to say without constraint, and have people defend their bullshit language. "In 1981, former Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, when giving an anonymous interview discussing former president Richard Nixon's Southern strategy, speculated that terms like "states' rights" were used for dog-whistling:[27][28][29] You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968, you can't say "nigger" – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now, you're talking about cutting taxes. And all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."[30]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)
kube-system 5y ago
Well, that’s the entire point of a dog whistle. They’re intentionally vague enough to encourage listeners to draw their own conclusions. They’re not hard to identify if you understand the viewpoints of the listeners or even just observe their reactions. If two groups like a statement, but they both thought it meant a different thing, that’s probably a dog whistle. Take for instance: “Vote for kube-system, he’s one of us. He thinks congress should do what’s right for Americans and their families; end the dishonesty in Washington, and protect the rights and values you deserve.” What demographic am I talking to? Who are the dishonest politicians? What rights and values? Could be anyone!
- whiddershins 5y ago
  That’s ambiguity.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Yes, dog whistles are ambiguous by definition. That is the entire point. What makes it a dog whistle is the intent of the speaker. I assure you that politicians don’t make ambiguous statements like the above because they have poor speaking skills. They do it intentionally to appeal to more groups of people. And they hire teams of well-paid writers, strategists, and psychologists to write these statements. These words are chosen very carefully. There’s no accidental ambiguity in a well funded political campaign speech. Have you ever paid attention to the way candidate change their phrasing on the same topic throughout an election cycle as they speak to different audiences? It’s like clockwork. A candidate who is talking to a special interest group in the primaries will say something like “I support a woman’s right to universal access to abortions”, and then in the general election on CNN they’ll say something like “I support woman’s reproductive rights”. The entire point of doing this is to get the moderate pro-life vote who thinks to theirselves: “oh yeah I support women’s rights too”

hobs 5y ago

No, it was literally a strategy explicitly used and still used by political operatives to say what they want to say without constraint, and have people defend their bullshit language. "In 1981, former Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, when giving an anonymous interview discussing former president Richard Nixon's Southern strategy, speculated that terms like "states' rights" were used for dog-whistling:[27][28][29] You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968, you can't say "nigger" – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now, you're talking about cutting taxes. And all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."[30]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

kube-system 5y ago

Well, that’s the entire point of a dog whistle. They’re intentionally vague enough to encourage listeners to draw their own conclusions. They’re not hard to identify if you understand the viewpoints of the listeners or even just observe their reactions. If two groups like a statement, but they both thought it meant a different thing, that’s probably a dog whistle. Take for instance: “Vote for kube-system, he’s one of us. He thinks congress should do what’s right for Americans and their families; end the dishonesty in Washington, and protect the rights and values you deserve.” What demographic am I talking to? Who are the dishonest politicians? What rights and values? Could be anyone!

whiddershins 5y ago
That’s ambiguity.
- kube-system 5y ago
  Yes, dog whistles are ambiguous by definition. That is the entire point. What makes it a dog whistle is the intent of the speaker. I assure you that politicians don’t make ambiguous statements like the above because they have poor speaking skills. They do it intentionally to appeal to more groups of people. And they hire teams of well-paid writers, strategists, and psychologists to write these statements. These words are chosen very carefully. There’s no accidental ambiguity in a well funded political campaign speech. Have you ever paid attention to the way candidate change their phrasing on the same topic throughout an election cycle as they speak to different audiences? It’s like clockwork. A candidate who is talking to a special interest group in the primaries will say something like “I support a woman’s right to universal access to abortions”, and then in the general election on CNN they’ll say something like “I support woman’s reproductive rights”. The entire point of doing this is to get the moderate pro-life vote who thinks to theirselves: “oh yeah I support women’s rights too”